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

August 27, 2026

Text, Trademarks, and Symbols in Representations in Thai Design Patent Applications

It is generally understood that patents are granted for new designs that have not been widely known or used in Thailand and not been disclosed anywhere prior to the date of the patent application.

It is trite law that design law protects the distinctive appearance or products. Under Section 3 of the Thai Patent Act B.E. 2522, as amended by the Patent Act (No. 2) B.E. 2535 and the Patent Act (No. 3) B.E. 2542, a design is defined as “any form or composition of lines or colors that gives a product a special appearance and can serve as a pattern for an industrial or handicraft product.”

This raises an important question. Can a patent be issued for a product design that contains text, numerals, trademarks, or symbols that do not fall under the definition of a design? This issue commonly arises when attempting to register packaging, labels, and graphical user interfaces (GUIs).

Until a few years ago, applicants could file design applications with the Thai Patent Office for designs that contained such elements, provided that an appropriate disclaimer was included. This practice was generally accepted by Thai design examiners at that time, but the Patent Office has since implemented a change in its practice that could have a significant impact on applicants for design patents. Where design representations are submitted as line drawings or computer-aided design (CAD) drawings, the examiner may now issue an office action requiring their removal.

This practice, however, appears to be applied inconsistently, as some examiners still exercise their own discretion in determining whether drawings containing these elements are acceptable.

Below are examples of a GUI design, a CAD drawing design, and a photographic design representation that illustrates issues relating to the presence of nonallowable elements.

GUI design

For this GUI design, the submitted representations included text, numerals, and symbols. During examination of the application, the examiner issued an office action requiring the removal of the text, numerals, and commonly used symbols, while allowing only newly created symbols to remain.

In response, the applicant submitted an explanation that these elements were incorporated solely to illustrate their placement within the product design and that no claim of exclusivity was made with respect to them. The applicant further clarified that protection was sought only for the novel arrangement, configuration, and positioning of the graphical elements shown in the design. The applicant also amended the claim to include a disclaimer stating this explicitly.

Following the amendment, the application was determined to satisfy all official requirements and was subsequently allowed.

Nonetheless, recent experience indicates that Thai design examiners have adopted a markedly stricter approach. Examiners now have consistently maintained that line drawings and CAD drawings must not include any text, numerals, trademarks, or symbols. In contrast to past practice, explanatory letters or arguments stating that protection is not claimed for such elements are generally no longer accepted by the Thai Patent Office.

As illustrated by the above example, GUI design proprietors may question the practical scope of protection available if all text, numerals, and symbols are removed from the drawings, leaving only basic graphical features such as rounded-corner rectangles. How Thai design examiners will approach the examination of GUI design drawings under the stricter standard remains uncertain; also uncertain is whether additional guidance will become available once proposed amendments to the current Patent Act relating to GUI protection are adopted and come into effect.

The next example below a CAD drawing filed for a label design in which no text, numerals, trademarks, or symbols appear in the design representation. If the original design incorporates any such elements, they should be removed before filing; otherwise, the examiner will likely raise an objection and issue an office action requiring their removal as a condition for further prosecution of the application.

CAD drawing

Lastly, by contrast, where photographs of the design are submitted, such elements are generally permitted to appear in the photographs. An example of such a design representation is shown below.

Photograph of a design

In such cases, however, applicants are typically required to include a disclaimer excluding those elements from the scope of protection.

Practical Takeaways

When a design incorporates text, numerals, trademarks, or symbols, applicants should carefully assess the most appropriate form of design representations to be filed. If such elements constitute part of the product’s visual appearance, photographic representations may be advantageous, as they are generally accepted when accompanied by a suitable disclaimer. By contrast, line drawings and CAD drawings should not contain any text, numerals, trademarks, or symbols.

Taking these considerations into account at the filing stage may reduce the likelihood of objections being raised during examination, streamline prosecution, and increase the prospects of obtaining registration in a timely manner.

RELATED INSIGHTS​ 

September 4, 2025
On June 6, 2025, the Superior People’s Court in Hanoi overturned a non-use cancellation decision by the Intellectual Property Office of Vietnam, a rare and impactful occurrence. In a ruling that may help clarify the enforcement of Vietnam’s IP Law, the court held that valid trademark use can be established through commercial arrangements where the brand owner maintains actual control over the use of the mark, and is not confined to relationships governed by a so-called “formal license agreement. Background: Cross-Border Use, Local Challenge A Singapore company owns a well-known brand of consumer products that has gained recognition across Southeast Asia. In recent years, the brand has been targeted by several unauthorized trademark filings in Vietnam. In one such instance, a local Vietnamese trading company—previously linked to the production and export of counterfeit goods to neighboring countries—filed a non-use cancellation against the Singapore company’s mark and sought to register it under its own name. If the cancellation had been upheld, it would have enabled a complete hijacking of the brand. The IP holder operates in Vietnam through a structured cross-border supply chain. Under an agreement between two related foreign entities, one of which managed regional operations, production orders were placed through a designated Vietnamese company. While the Vietnamese manufacturer was not a party to the agreement, its role in using the mark was recognized and governed by internal and commercial documentation. The Vietnamese manufacturer lawfully obtained the necessary permits, regulatory approvals, and customs clearances for producing the goods in Vietnam. These activities were supported by banking records and internal communications, evidencing active, continuous use of the mark in Vietnam. However, the IP Office concluded that this use did not meet the statutory criteria because the Vietnamese manufacturer did not have a direct license agreement with the brand owner, as
August 25, 2025
Indonesia’s current regulations on franchises, as stipulated under Government Regulation No. 35/2024 on Franchising and its implementing regulation, Ministry of Trade (MOT) Regulation No. 71/2019 regarding Implementation of Franchising, highlight fundamental changes in franchise registration. These changes have introduced additional complexities and challenges in the franchise registration procedure, making it more difficult for franchise owners to navigate the process. New procedure Franchise applications are still submitted through the Online Single Submission (OSS) portal of the Capital Investment Coordinating Board (BKPM). However, the new procedure requires each applicant, including foreign franchisors, to have an OSS account and a business registration number (NIB) issued by BKPM. An application for franchise registration must be submitted under the applicant’s own account—submissions can no longer be made through the account of a consultant. Once a franchise application is submitted, the authority will distribute the submission to the MOT—the authorized ministry for franchise registration. Any notification or decision upon the registration made by the MOT will be available in the OSS system. Applicants should regularly monitor the status of the franchise application because no notifications will be sent to applicants to alert them of any deficiency. Here is the summary of the new procedure for franchisors: Notable Requirements The disclosure document, or prospectus, is the key focus for the MOT in examining a franchise registration for a franchisor. This document is subject to thorough scrutiny by the MOT to ensure that all mandatory information meets the requirements set in the franchise regulations. The current regulations specifically require that the mandatory clause “business system” in the prospectus cover operational standards and procedures, which should include human resource management, administration, operational management, standard operating methods, business location selection, business premises design, employee requirements, and marketing strategies. Other clauses that are equally important to pay attention to are:
August 21, 2025
Although the “passing off” principle has sometimes faced criticism for potentially broadening trademark protection—particularly in cases involving unregistered or unconventional marks like shapes, scents, or sounds—it serves an essential purpose. It safeguards the rights of business owners and shields consumers from deception, ensuring fair competition and reflecting the realities of modern commerce. What is passing off, and why is registrability not required? The passing-off principle is a legal concept rooted in English law, aimed at preventing a person from falsely representing or using a mark similar to another’s in a way that causes consumers to mistakenly believe the goods or services come from the same source. Under Thai law, the passing-off principle is provided under Section 46 of the Thai Trademark Act, which states: No person shall be entitled to bring legal proceedings to prevent or to recover damages for the infringement of an unregistered trademark. The provisions of this Section shall not affect the right of the owner of an unregistered trademark to bring legal proceedings against any person for passing off goods as those of the owner of the trademark. The passing-off principle can be interpreted as a practical legal concept. It does not require proof that the mark is registrable or meets the registrability criteria under trademark law. It is sufficient to show that the mark has established goodwill and that the other party’s use of a similar mark is likely to confuse consumers, making it a straightforward and effective tool for protecting brand assets. Requiring a claimant to prove that an unregistered mark could have been registered would undermine the very function of passing off. The doctrine was conceived precisely to fill the gaps left by the registration system. Imposing registrability criteria would nullify its function and leave many commercially valuable identifiers unprotected. If the
August 15, 2025
Indonesia’s Directorate General of Intellectual Property (DGIP) has introduced a temporary feature in its online filing system to accommodate the submission of annual patent working statements. The requirement to submit these annual working statements was introduced under the amended Patent Law enacted on October 28, 2024, but the implementing regulation has still not been issued. Annual Working Statements Article 20A of the amended Patent Law requires all patentees to submit an annual statement regarding the implementation of their patents in Indonesia. This obligation applies to all active patents, regardless of when they were granted. The annual working statement declares the status of implementation of the patented invention within Indonesia. Acceptable forms of implementation include: Manufacturing the patented product (whether commercialized or not) Utilizing the patented process (whether commercialized or not) Importation Licensing If the patent has not yet been implemented in Indonesia, the DGIP provides an option to indicate: “The mentioned registered patent has not been implemented in Indonesia.” The statement must be made using the official template provided by the DGIP through the online filing system. Submission The working statement must be submitted annually no later than December 31 of each calendar year. No supporting documents are needed for the submission apart from the signed form itself. A color scanned copy will suffice; the original document is not required. There is currently no official fee for submitting the working statement. While the submission process may eventually align with annuity fee payments, the current process remains separate due to the pending implementing regulation. The submission process may be subject to change upon issuance of the implementing regulation, which is under discussion and expected in the coming months. In the interim, the DGIP accepts submissions of overdue working statements, allowing patentees to fulfill their obligations retroactively. This flexibility is expected