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

March 9, 2015

Supreme Court Ruling on Marks Similar to Pharma INNs

Subscribe to Updates
Informed Counsel

In Thailand, the names ascribed by generic drug manufacturers to their pharmaceutical products are often similar to the names of pharmaceutical substances identified under the International Nonproprietary Name (INN) system, a World Health Organization (WHO) naming system designed to facilitate the identification of pharmaceutical substances or active pharmaceutical ingredients. Generic drug manufacturers gain an advantage through this practice, as names which closely resemble an INN are easily recognizable, and thus, are more likely to be sold by pharmacists and purchased by consumers.

Under Thai trademark law, it is prohibited to register a mark that is similar or identical to an INN. In practice, however, this modicum of law is often contravened and marks that are similar or identical to INNs are frequently registered. In an apparent effort to rectify this, the Supreme Court recently issued a decision confirming the law and emphasizing that the use of a trademark similar to an INN accrues unjust benefits for a generic manufacturer and causes unfair competition. In this article, we will look at the significance of the Supreme Court’s ruling.

Case Background

An innovator drug company filed a petition with the Board of Trademarks (BOT) in Thailand to cancel the registration of a Thai generic drug manufacturer’s mark, VALATAN. The mark VALATAN had been registered for use with pharmaceutical products in Class 5. The pharmaceutical products were drugs for the treatment of hypertension and were named with the INN, “Valsartan.”

The innovator drug company’s petition was based on the grounds that the Thai generic drug manufacturer’s mark VALATAN was similar to the INN of the drug Valsartan, as supported by Notification of the Ministry of Commerce Notification No. 5 B.E. 2543 (A.D. 2000), which prohibits the registration of a trademark that is similar to an INN.

The BOT cancelled the registration of the mark VALATAN, which prompted the Thai generic drug manufacturer to file an appeal with the Intellectual Property and International Trade Court (IP&IT Court), contending that the BOT’s order was unjust. In the civil suit at the IP&IT Court, the Thai generic drug manufacturer was the plaintiff, while the Department of Intellectual Property (DIP), which oversees the BOT, was the first defendant. The innovator drug company, which originally launched the trademark cancellation, filed a motion to join the case as a co-defendant with the DIP and the BOT. The IP&IT Court allowed the motion, as one of the plaintiff’s main arguments was that the petitioner—the innovator drug company—was not an interested party to file the petition with the BOT from the beginning.

Issues of the Case

During the trial, the first issue in dispute was whether the co-defendant (i.e., the innovator drug company) was an interested party for the purpose of filing the petition at the BOT. The plaintiff argued that, from the outset, the co-defendant did not have any legal standing to file the petition, because the co-defendant’s trademarks for the same products—DIOVAN and CO-DIOVAN—were not similar to the plaintiff’s mark, thus making them unlikely to cause confusion among the public.

The IP&IT Court considered the fact that the pharmaceutical products of the co-defendant and the plaintiff were the same, since both products contain the same active ingredient. The Court further recognized that both companies are in the same business, and hence, are competitors. As a result, sales of the plaintiff’s products directly affect the sales of the petitioner’s products, and thus, the co-defendant has legal standing in the case.

The IP&IT Court ruled that the difference in the trademarks of both parties was irrelevant and determined that the key issue was the similarity between the plaintiff’s trademark and the INN. The Court found that the similarity between the plaintiff’s mark and the INN was likely to cause confusion among the public. Therefore, the Court stated that use of a trademark which is similar to an INN reaps unjust benefits and leads to unfair competition.

The second issue was whether the trademark VALATAN bore similarity to the INN Valsartan. The IP&IT Court determined that both words consisted of three syllables and the beginning and end syllables of both marks were identical. After considering the appearance and pronunciation of both words, the Court concluded that both words were similar, and therefore, the plaintiff’s mark would be prohibited from registration.

The third issue was whether the trademark VALATAN was prohibited from registration under Section 8(13) of the Thai Trademark Act, as the plaintiff argued that Notification No. 5, which provides a restriction on the registration of a trademark that is similar to an INN, is in conflict with the Trademark Act B.E. 2534 (A.D. 1991). The IP&IT Court ruled that the Ministry’s Notification prohibiting the registration of trademarks that are identical or similar to INNs is not beyond the scope of Section 8(13) of the Trademark Act, and so the Notification is not contrary to the Constitution of the Kingdom of Thailand, as argued by the plaintiff.

As a result and in accordance with Section 8(13) of the Trademark Act and Section 2(1) of the Ministry of Commerce’s Notification No. 5 on prohibited marks, the plaintiff’s trademark was prohibited at the time of registration. Consequently, the IP&IT Court held that the BOT’s order to cancel the registration of the plaintiff’s trademark VALATAN was lawful, and the Court dismissed the case.

Appeal to the Supreme Court

The plaintiff was dissatisfied with the IP&IT Court’s decision and proceeded to file an appeal to the Supreme Court. In the appeal, the plaintiff argued that the co-defendant’s trademarks, DIOVAN and CO-DIOVAN, are clearly different from the plaintiff’s trademark, VALATAN. Although the co-defendant is a manufacturer and distributor of products containing the active agent Valsartan, the co-defendant is unaffected by the plaintiff’s registration of the trademark VALATAN, because the plaintiff’s trademark VALATAN and the name Valsartan are different. Moreover, the plaintiff argued that in the guidelines on the use of INNs, it is readily seen that the WHO specifically aims to protect the INN for the pharmaceutical substance Valsartan and other names which are not designated by the WHO are not included. Therefore, the plaintiff’s trademark VALATAN is not prohibited from being registered as a trademark, according to the WHO’s guidelines.

With respect to the issue of similarity between the plaintiff’s trademark VALATAN and the INN Valsartan, the plaintiff contended that the name Valsartan contains “val” and the stem “-sartan,” demonstrating that the active agent is for the treatment of hypertension. Other active agents in this group include Abitesartan and Azilsartan, which also have “-sartan” as a part of the word. Therefore, “-sartan” is an essential element in their names. The plaintiff’s trademark VALATAN does not include the stem “-sartan” and would therefore not cause confusion to patients and healthcare providers.

As for the last issue regarding the legitimacy of Notification No. 5, the plaintiff argued that Clause 2(1) of the Notification broadens the scope of Section 8(13) of the Trademark Act by adding the phrase “identical or similar.” Because the scope of Section 8(13) is limited by the phrase “possesses or consists of,” the addition of the phrase “identical or similar” is beyond the scope and power received under the Trademark Act.

The plaintiff argued that because Notification No. 5 is beyond the scope and power received under the provision of the law, such Notification limits the rights and liberty of a person to use their registered trademarks for goods to be traded in the course of their occupation. Consequently, the Notification limits the right of occupation of a person and is contrary to the Trademark Act and the Constitution of the Kingdom of Thailand.

The Supreme Court issued its ruling in late 2014, confirming the IP&IT Court’s decision. The Supreme Court determined that the plaintiff and co-defendant are in the same business and are competitors. Although the co-defendant’s marks are not similar to the plaintiff’s mark, the sale of the plaintiff’s VALATAN product has a direct impact on the co-defendant. The plaintiff has an unfair advantage over other business operators, and therefore, the co-defendant had the legal standing to file a petition with the BOT. 

The Supreme Court did not accept the plaintiff’s argument regarding the dissimilarity of the mark VALATAN and the INN Valsartan, and instead, agreed with the IP&IT Court’s analysis of the similarity between them. Lastly, the Supreme Court disagreed with the plaintiff’s argument and opined that the issuance of Notification No. 5 was proper under the authority vested in Section 8(13) of the Trademark Act. As a result, the BOT’s order to cancel the trademark VALATAN was in accordance with the law. The Supreme Court also confirmed the IP&IT Court’s decision that the mark VALATAN should be cancelled.

Although Notification No. 5 of the Ministry of Commerce—which prohibits the registration of a mark that is similar or identical to an INN—was implemented in the year 2000, very few cases have been brought to court to test its application. In this instance, the IP&IT Court and the Supreme Court correctly applied the law and provided reasoning that was sensible and worthy of recognition.

Download Full Article
Related Professionals

Practices

Dispute Resolution and Litigation

Intellectual Property

Location

RELATED INSIGHTS​ 

August 18, 2026
Securing a favorable judgment is often only the midpoint of a dispute. For businesses and investors, the more important commercial question is whether that judgment can be converted into actual recovery. In Thailand, this typically requires the judgment creditor to enforce the judgment through the Legal Execution Department by seizing, attaching, auctioning, or otherwise executing against the judgment debtor’s assets. Thailand’s schedule of these enforcement fees was last revised by an amendment to the Civil Procedure Code that took effect in September 2025. The Civil Procedure Code Amendment Act (No. 33) B.E. 2568 (2025) updated the schedule of execution officer fees listed in table 5 of the Civil Procedure Code. While the amendment did not eliminate the costs associated with enforcement, it lowered several key execution officer fees and abolished certain fees that previously applied even where enforcement did not ultimately result in the sale or disposition of assets. The reform is intended to reduce the financial burden associated with judgment enforcement and remove unnecessary obstacles to settlement once enforcement proceedings have commenced. As a result, it has practical implications not only for judgment creditors seeking to maximize recovery, but also for debtors considering settlement after enforcement has begun and for businesses and investors assessing litigation and credit risk in Thailand. Key Changes The amendment introduced several changes to the execution officer fee structure. First, where seized or attached assets are sold by public auction or otherwise disposed of, the execution officer fee has been reduced from 3% to 2% of the sale or disposition proceeds. This fee remains separate from announcement costs and other out-of-pocket expenses incurred during the enforcement process. Second, where seized or attached funds are paid to a judgment creditor, the execution officer fee has been reduced from 2% to 1% of the amount recovered.
Read More
August 13, 2026
Modern agricultural machinery is no longer purely mechanical but instead technology dependent. Modern tractors, harvesters, and other farm equipment increasingly incorporate embedded software, electronic control units, sensors, and digital diagnostic systems. While such technologies enhance efficiency, productivity, and precision farming, they also affect the manner of equipment repair and maintenance. As a result, farmers and independent repair providers may have little practical choice but to rely on authorized dealers, even for routine maintenance and repairs. Section 36 of Thailand’s Patent Act reflects the principle that the authorized sale of a patented invention usually exhausts the exclusive right of the patent owner over the specific product. This means that upon legal sale of the patented product, it can typically be used or resold without further authorization from the patent holder. This principle is relatively straightforward when applied to traditional mechanical equipment. Ownership of a machine ordinarily carries with it the practical ability to diagnose faults, replace worn parts, and restore the equipment to working order. Modern agricultural machinery, however, increasingly depends on embedded software, proprietary diagnostic systems, firmware updates, and other digital resources that may remain under the control of the manufacturer or patent holder. This tension lies within the “right to repair” debate. In the United States, on July 8, 2026, the Federal Trade Commission and five states announced a settlement with Deere & Company resolving allegations that Deere had unlawfully restricted farmers’ and independent repair providers’ ability to repair their equipment. Under the terms of the settlement, for the next ten years, Deere must provide repair resources, including software capabilities, on terms equivalent to those provided to authorized dealers. The Deere settlement highlights that the nature of ownership is changing, but legal concepts have not kept pace. Traditional patent-law concepts, including patent exhaustion, were developed with physical products
Read More
August 11, 2026
Cambodia’s Ministry of Justice has launched a new platform on its official website to publish notices of forced sales issued by each municipal and provincial court of first instance. The platform’s stated purpose is to inform the public and facilitate greater participation in forced-sale auctions conducted in connection with court-ordered enforcement proceedings. How the Platform Works The platform publishes forced-sale notices from courts of first instance across Cambodia’s municipalities and provinces and includes a link where the public can view properties currently subject to forced sale. To participate in a forced-sale auction, individuals can download Khmer-language bidding application forms through links provided on the platform. The form typically requires the applicant’s name, sex, year of birth, identity card number and issue date, and address, together with details identifying the immovable property (including its ownership certificate number), the relevant enforcement case number and date, and the reference to the public auction or tender announcement issued by the court. Completed application forms must be submitted directly to the specific municipal or provincial court that issued the forced sale. For further inquiries about a particular forced sale, interested parties should likewise contact the relevant municipal or provincial court. Forced Sale of Immovable Property in Cambodia The publication of these notices relates to the forced sale procedure for immovable property under Cambodia’s Code of Civil Procedure (CPC). Unlike property seizure by a court, a forced sale is a compulsory execution proceeding—a subsequent enforcement step that arises only after an underlying dispute has been adjudicated and a debtor fails to pay the debt or outstanding amount due under a final and binding judgment or other enforceable title of execution. For the purposes of this procedure, the term “immovable property” under the CPC refers to land, registered buildings, jointly held shares of such property, registered
Read More
August 10, 2026
Thailand has finalized its social media KYC (“know your customer”) rules under Notification of the Electronic Transactions Commission on Measures to Prevent Technological Crimes for Social Media Service Providers (No. 2), which was published in the Government Gazette on May 5, 2026, and will take effect on November 1, 2026. While an early draft of the notification proposed requiring social media platforms to arrange identification of every user account, the final notification is significantly more targeted, focusing on paid online advertising and advertiser identity verification. Though the regulatory initiative primarily aims to combat online fraud and technology-related crimes, it also has important consequences for intellectual property enforcement, because the verified platform records that will be generated under the new requirements can help IP rights holders to identify anonymous online infringers. Key Regulatory Mandates The notification requires social media service providers to verify the identity of advertisers before their paid advertisements are published and disseminated in Thailand through social media, regardless of whether the advertising fees come from the advertisers or third parties. Verification of an advertiser is valid for one year, after which verification would have to be performed again before the platform could publish additional paid advertisements from the advertiser. Permitted verification methods are specified under the notification. A platform may verify an advertiser by checking identity evidence and confirming the connection between the advertiser and that identity evidence, with the notification giving facial comparison against certain government-issued identity documents as an example. Alternatively, platforms may verify advertisers through a digital identity verification and authentication system with an identity-proofing assurance level not lower than the level prescribed by Thailand’s Electronic Transactions Commission. The notification further requires platforms to retain only the advertiser’s information necessary to identify the advertiser, beginning from the start of the advertising activity and for
Read More