You are using an outdated browser and your browsing experience will not be optimal. Please update to the latest version of Microsoft Edge, Google Chrome or Mozilla Firefox. Install Microsoft Edge

February 25, 2014

Supreme Court Orders Registration of “Polo” Mark Despite Existence of Earlier “Polo” Marks

Subscribe to Updates
World Trademark Review

In Young Sangyo Co Ltd v Department of Intellectual Property (November 25, 2013), the Supreme Court has overturned a decision of the Intellectual Property and International Trade Court (IP&IT Court) in which the latter had found the figurative trademark BEVERLY HILLS POLO CLUB was confusingly similar to the earlier figurative trademark SANTA BARBARA POLO & RACQUET CLUB.

Plaintiff Young Sangyo Co Ltd filed an application for the registration of the trademark BEVERLY HILLS POLO CLUB (and polo player device) with the Department of Intellectual Property of Thailand for goods in several classes, including Classes 9 and 28 of the Nice Classification (Application Nos 595158 and 595162).

The registrar rejected the application under Section 13 of the Trademark Act on the ground that the trademark was identical or similar to the registered trademarks of others, namely:

  • The trademark RLX POLO SPORT (and device) (Registration No TM102221) for goods in Class 9:
  • The trademark POLO (and device) (Registration No TM184935) for goods in Class 18:
  • The trademark SANTA BARBARA POLO & RACQUET CLUB (and device) (Registration No TM193574) for goods in Class 9:
  • The trademark POLO WORLD (and device) (Registration No TM174819) for goods in Class 9:

The plaintiff appealed to the Board of Trademarks. The board confirmed the registrar’s order, finding that the plaintiff’s trademark was identical or similar to the registered trademarks of others to the extent that it might cause public confusion as to the proprietorship or origin of the goods.

The plaintiff argued that the registrar’s order and the Board of Trademarks’ decision were unlawful, as its trademark was not identical or similar to the registered trademarks of others to the extent that it could cause confusion among the public. The plaintiff filed a civil suit with the IP&IT Court, requesting that the court withdraw the registrar’s order and the board’s decision and order the Department of Intellectual Property to proceed with registration of the mark.

The IP&IT Court dismissed the case, considering that the mark applied for was confusingly similar to the registered trademark SANTA BARBARA POLO & RACQUET CLUB of the Santa Barbara Polo & Racquet Club. The plaintiff appealed to the Supreme Court.

On November 25, 2013, the Supreme Court pronounced its judgment. The court stated that, due to its appearance and pronunciation, the plaintiff’s trademark BEVERLY HILLS POLO CLUB was clearly different from the registered trademark SANTA BARBARA POLO & RACQUET CLUB, as well as the other cited trademarks. The court also considered that, although the marks both included the word “polo,” this did not preclude the plaintiff from using that word as part of its trademark, given that its overall appearance and pronunciation was not confusingly similar. In addition, as the plaintiff had disclaimed the words “Beverly Hills” and “club,” it had no exclusive rights over those words. Finally, the plaintiff had successfully proven that it had used and advertised the mark in numerous countries without any confusion since 2001.

The Supreme Court thus overturned the IP&IT Court’s judgment and dismissed the Board of Trademarks’ decision. It ordered the Department of Intellectual Property to proceed with registration of the plaintiff’s trademark in Class 9 and Class 28.

Download Full Article
Related Professionals

Practices

Dispute Resolution and Litigation

Intellectual Property

Location

RELATED INSIGHTS​ 

August 6, 2026
Every month, VAT-registered businesses in Thailand calculate their output and input VAT and file a return to pay the net amount due or claim a refund. Yet a common and costly dispute arises when a business that has paid input VAT to its supplier—and done everything asked of it—later finds that input VAT rejected on the grounds that the tax invoice was issued by “a person not entitled to issue tax invoices.” In these cases, a buyer may have confirmed the supplier’s VAT registration on the Revenue Department’s website, paid through the banking system, received a complete tax invoice, and kept full payment and inventory records. Even so, if the Revenue Department later determines that the supplier did not genuinely make the sale or collected the VAT without remitting it, the department can disallow the input VAT and assess additional tax, surcharge, and penalty—often more than a year after the transaction. A new article from tax and dispute resolution specialists at Tilleke & Gibbins in Bangkok examines how the Revenue Department and the courts approach these disputes, including two recent Supreme Court (Tax Division) decisions confirming that the taxpayer bears the burden of proving a supplier genuinely sold and delivered the goods and received payment. It considers why the VAT registration system offers no legal safe harbor, why the evidentiary burden falls hardest on online and cross-border transactions where buyers and sellers never meet, and how the Revenue Department’s own digital infrastructure could detect non-remitting suppliers at the source rather than shifting the loss to good-faith buyers. The article also sets out practical guidance: how to build a comprehensive “know-your-supplier” file at the time of a transaction, the procedural steps and strict deadlines for challenging a VAT assessment, and why dispute readiness belongs alongside tax planning at the center
Read More
August 4, 2026
Intellectual property (IP) protection sometimes hinges on fame and recognition. However, this alone will not always be sufficient to overcome an IP dispute when it involves contractual obligations or registered rights. Below are five cases from around the world that tackle some of the basic issues in IP registration, ownership, commercialization, and enforcement. 1. USA: Taylor Swift Trademark Application Refused Taylor Swift recently filed a trademark application to register “The Life of a Showgirl,” which is the title of her 12th studio album. When examining a trademark application, the examiner considers various factors before deciding whether it should be registered. One of these factors is whether there is a likelihood of confusion (i.e., would a regular consumer mistake the origin of the trademark). In Taylor Swift’s case, the US Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO) decided that that there would be a risk of confusion. This decision was based on the existing registered trademark, “Confessions of a Showgirl,” owned by Maren Wade, which was registered in 2015. The USPTO refused Taylor Swift’s application based on the shared key distinctive element “of a showgirl,” the lack of sufficient distinguishing terms, the marks being used in overlapping markets (entertainment and performances), and because consumers may assume a common commercial source. Maren Wade then filed a lawsuit in California against Taylor Swift and her affiliated companies, arguing that Taylor Swfit’s branding is confusingly similar in structure, wording, and overall commercial impression to her registered mark. She is also drawing on the USPTO’s refusal of Taylor Swift’s application to support her argument of a likelihood of confusion. A judgment has not yet been reached in this case, but it serves as an important reminder of the importance of satisfying the essential elements required for IP registration. 2. Australia: Katy Perry v. Katie Perry In
Read More
July 27, 2026
Vietnam’s new E-Commerce Law, which took effect on 1 July 2026 along with its implementing Decree No. 248/2026/ND-CP (Decree 248), marks a significant development in the country’s approach to online intellectual property (IP) enforcement, reflecting a clear shift from a reactive model of intermediary liability to one that expects platforms to play a more active role in preventing infringement. From notice-and-takedown to platform responsibility The most significant change introduced by the E-Commerce Law is the transformation of the legal role of e-commerce platforms. The existing safe harbor provisions under the IP Law and the copyright notice-and-takedown regime established by Decree 17/2023/ND-CP (Decree 17) largely required intermediaries to act only after receiving notice of infringement. Once infringing content had been removed, the platform’s legal obligation was generally considered fulfilled. The new legislation adopts a fundamentally different approach. Article 17 of the E-Commerce Law requires intermediary platforms to screen information relating to goods and services before publication in order to prevent listings involving counterfeit or IP-infringing goods, and goods of unknown origin. Rather than relying exclusively on complaints from rights holders, platforms are now expected to implement preventive measures before infringing listings become publicly available. Decree 248 further requires platforms to update keyword filters based on recommendations issued by competent authorities. These filtering mechanisms are intended to prevent prohibited listings from appearing on the platform and represent a further move away from a purely complaint-driven enforcement model. The legislation also introduces Vietnam’s first statutory stay-down obligation. Under the E-Commerce Law and Decree 248, major digital platforms must maintain automated systems capable of reviewing, warning against, and removing unlawful listings while also implementing measures to prevent repeat violations, defined under Decree 248 as conduct that has previously been identified and handled by the platform, but continues to recur. This obligation addresses one
Read More
July 27, 2026
Tilleke & Gibbins’ intellectual property specialists have authored the Thailand chapter of Trade Secrets 2026 from Chambers and Partners. This global guide examines the legal frameworks governing trade secret protection, enforcement, and litigation across jurisdictions worldwide. The Thailand chapter provides a comprehensive overview of the country’s legal regime for protecting confidential business information, covering the legal framework, trade secret misappropriation, litigation procedures, remedies, and dispute resolution. Some topics covered include: Protectable trade secrets Reasonable measures to maintain secrecy Employee confidentiality Trade secret licensing Civil and criminal remedies Litigation procedures and injunctions Damages and other remedies Mediation and arbitration The guide also examines practical issues relating to safeguarding trade secrets, defending against allegations of misappropriation, and managing trade secret disputes in Thailand. Chambers and Partners’ Global Practice Guides provide in-house counsel with authoritative commentary on practical legal issues affecting business, enabling readers to compare legislation and procedures across multiple jurisdictions. The Thailand chapter of Trade Secrets 2026 is available as a PDF through the button below. The full guide can be accessed for free on the Chambers and Partners website.
Read More