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

July 21, 2025

Thai Court Finds Acquired Trademark Distinctiveness through Use in Rare Decision

Subscribe to Updates
World Trademark Review

Distinctiveness is a fundamental requirement for a trademark’s registration and protection under Thai law. The Thai courts typically assess distinctiveness based on a mark’s inherent characteristics rather than its use, as proving acquired distinctiveness through use requires substantial evidence, including the duration of use, extent of distribution and promotional efforts.

However, the Intellectual Property and International Trade Court (IP & IT Court) has recently ruled that the figurative mark WEPLAY had acquired distinctiveness through use – an uncommon ruling under Thai trademark law. Subsequently, the Court of Appeal for Specialised Cases affirmed the mark’s inherent distinctiveness based on a holistic assessment of its components.

This article discusses the criteria for proving both inherent and acquired distinctiveness, offering examples from both courts to provide valuable insights into case preparation and understanding of how the courts assess distinctiveness.

Background

In 2017 the plaintiff filed a trademark application for the mark depicted below for goods in Class 28, including toy building blocks:

The registrar rejected the application on the grounds of non-distinctiveness under Section 7 of the Trademark Act. The plaintiff appealed to the Board of Trademarks, which considered that, when the term ‘weplay’ is used for goods in Class 28, it is descriptive of the nature of the goods applied for as “playthings”. Therefore, ‘weplay’ was deemed nondistinctive under Section 7, Paragraph 2(2) of the Trademark Act.

IP & IT Court decision

In 2024 the IP & IT Court ruled that the term ‘weplay’ is not a coined or invented word; instead, it is a combination of ‘we’ and ‘play’, conveying the meaning of ‘we play’. When the term is used for goods in Class 28, it describes the nature of the goods as “playthings”. Consequently, the mark was deemed non-distinctive.

However, the court considered the evidence presented by the plaintiff, which showed that the latter had been selling the product in Thailand for over 10 years. This evidence, including invoices, online and print catalogue advertisements, as well as other documentation, confirmed the continuous use of the trademark alongside widespread product distribution and advertising in Thailand for over 10 years. This evidence conclusively established that goods bearing the mark had been extensively sold, distributed and advertised; therefore, the mark had acquired distinctiveness through continuous use under Section 7, Paragraph 3 of the Act. The IP & IT Court, as the court of first instance, thus adjudicated that the mark was registrable.

Both parties appealed.

Appeal decision

On 26 February 2025 the Court of Appeal for Specialised Cases held that the mark at issue consisted of two key elements:

  1. the word ‘weplay’; and
  2. a rounded-shaped device with an unusual combination of colours.

The term ‘weplay’ was found to be suggestive rather than descriptive, requiring a consumer’s interpretation to associate it with the goods. When combined with the graphic element, the mark as a whole was distinctive, enabling consumers to identify and

differentiate the goods. Accordingly, the trademark meets the distinctiveness criteria under Section 7, Paragraph 1, and Section 7, Paragraph 2(8) of the act.

The appellate court thus concluded that the mark was inherently distinctive.

Comment

The case highlights the adoption by the Thai courts of a holistic approach, contributing to a more dynamic framework for assessing trademark distinctiveness. It also shows a growing tendency to consider acquired distinctiveness through use, making it a more flexible factor in trademark litigation.

 

This article first appeared in WTR Daily, part of World Trademark Review, in June 2025. For further information, please go to www.worldtrademarkreview.com.

Related Professionals

Practices

Intellectual Property

Location

RELATED INSIGHTS​ 

October 3, 2025
In Thailand, the rise in online intellectual property infringement has prompted authorities to strengthen enforcement efforts, including the use of website-blocking orders under Section 20(3) of the Computer Crime Act B.E. 2560 (2017) (CCA). This provision authorizes the Ministry of Digital Economy and Society (MDES), with court approval, to block or remove computer data that constitutes a criminal offence under IP law. Since its implementation, the procedure has undergone several developments, which is an encouraging sign of progress. Website-blocking procedure In practice, website-blocking orders under Section 20(3) of the CCA are primarily used for copyright and trademark infringement. While such orders are legally applicable to patent infringement, their use remains challenging due to the difficulty of proving infringement through administrative procedures. The website-blocking procedure begins when an IP owner identifies online infringing content. For copyright infringement, which is considered a compoundable offence, the IP owner is required to first file a police report with the specialized police unit known as the Economic Crime Suppression Division (ECD) prior to filing the website-blocking application with the Department of Intellectual Property (DIP). For trademark infringement cases, the application can be filed directly with the DIP without a prior police report. The DIP reviews the evidence and, if infringement is confirmed, forwards it to the MDES for further consideration. If the case is deemed valid, the MDES requests a court order to block the infringing website. Once granted, the MDES notifies the internet service providers (ISPs) to block access to the specified website. Website blocking procedure in Thailand Recent advancements in website-blocking actions Seamless collaboration through digital integration. Thailand has made significant progress in digitizing its website-blocking procedures to improve efficiency and transparency. At present, all website-blocking applications and supporting evidence must be submitted in electronic format. These systems have significantly reduced processing
Read More
September 24, 2025
Online shopping in Thailand is more accessible than ever, with global platforms, local social media shops, and entertainment-driven social commerce enabling instant purchases. However, this convenience comes with rising concerns over digital intellectual property (IP) infringement, including counterfeit goods, pirated content, and unauthorized brand usage. At first glance, online platforms appear to offer quick solutions. Most major e-commerce sites, social media channels, and social commerce platforms provide “notice and takedown” systems, where IP owners can file complaints and request the removal of listings that infringe IP rights, such as trademarks and copyrights. These tools are certainly useful, as seeing a fake product vanish from a platform feels like progress. But the reality is less reassuring. The counterfeit goods themselves remain in warehouses, markets, or shops, ready to be resold. Sellers whose accounts are taken down often return within days under new names or accounts. In other words, a takedown is like cutting weeds without pulling out the roots: they always grow back. While notice and takedown tools are widely available and can be managed internally by most IP owners, their impact is often short-lived. IP owners seeking more effective, lasting protection need to take a more strategic and multilayered approach. The same applies to online piracy. Unauthorized streaming websites that offer free access to movies, TV shows, or sports broadcasts have become widespread in Thailand. To combat this, rightsholders can request website blocking under the Computer Crime Act, through the Ministry of Digital Economy and Society and the courts. Once requests are approved, internet service providers are ordered to block access to infringing sites. Blocking orders can be effective in disrupting large-scale piracy operations, but they also face limitations—pirate sites frequently reappear under new domains. Strategic Protection Whether the infringing material is physical counterfeit goods or intangible streaming content,
Read More
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
Read More
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:
Read More