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 6, 2026
Introduction: A Trademark Paradox in Sustainable Packaging Walk into any Thai supermarket, and the label-free water bottle is no longer a novelty. Thailand’s packaging market, valued at approximately USD 15.68 billion in 2025, is shifting toward minimalist, plastic-light designs as ESG pressures reshape how brands present their products. The country generated roughly 5.68 million tons of plastic waste in 2021, with a recycling rate of only 19 percent, and regulators are now considering rules that would allow label-free bottled water relying on embossing, laser printing, or QR codes instead of wrap-around labels. As packaging itself becomes the brand identifier, a paradox emerges: designs built to say the least often struggle hardest for protection under Thai intellectual property law. The Trademark Barrier: When Shape Is Not Enough Section 7, paragraph 2(10) of the Thai Trademark Act deems a shape distinctive only if it is not the natural form of the goods, is not necessary to achieve a technical result, and does not add value to the goods. The Department of Intellectual Property’s 2022 examination guidelines apply this test conservatively, as the following examples illustrate. A plain water bottle relying on subtle contours to signal its brand is typically read as just another bottle, not a source identifier. Acquired distinctiveness offers a theoretical escape route, but it demands extensive evidence of sales, advertising, and consumer recognition—an especially heavy burden for new entrants whose minimalist packaging has not yet achieved market prominence. The result is a structural bias against precisely the design innovation that sustainability goals are meant to encourage. Design Patents: A Partial, Imperfect Substitute Design patent protection, covering a product’s shape, configuration, or ornamentation, appears to offer an alternative route. In practice, it is constrained by the same forces driving the minimalist trend. Because many brands converge on similar solutions—clear
Read More
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