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

January 4, 2023

Thai Court Upholds Trademark Protection for Service Station Layout

Subscribe to Updates
Managing Intellectual Property

In early November 2022, a Thai appeals court overruled the Trademark Registrar’s decision and the Board of Trademarks’ ruling by upholding the registrability of an oil company’s trademark application for its branded service station layout. This is the latest word in a long-running dispute between ExxonMobil and the country’s Department of Intellectual Property (DIP), which had previously rejected the mark as indistinctive.

ExxonMobil first filed applications in April 2015 for a trademark bearing a unique colorful drawing of the layout of a service station bearing its well-known registered “ESSO” mark in International Classes 4 and 35 in Thailand.

However, the Thai Trademark Registrar refused to register the mark, arguing that the mark was devoid of inherent distinctiveness because the service station layout drawing is directly descriptive of the applied-for goods and services related to oil products. According to the Registrar, the public would not be able to distinguish between the goods and services bearing ExxonMobil’s mark and those bearing the marks of others.

ExxonMobil appealed this refusal to the Board of Trademarks, which ultimately agreed that ExxonMobil’s marks are devoid of inherent distinctiveness. The Board explained that the dominant elements in the drawing consist of a common service station with fuel dispensers, which is directly related to the applied-for goods and services related to oil products. The Board also deemed that the submitted evidence was insufficient to prove that the mark had gained distinctiveness through use.

ExxonMobil disagreed with these rulings and thus filed a civil complaint with the Intellectual Property and International Trade Court (IP&IT Court) to revoke the Registrar’s decisions and the Board’s rulings.

The IP&IT Court examined the case and issued its judgment in favor of ExxonMobil, ruling that the marks are inherently distinctive. The Court noted that to consider a mark’s distinctiveness, it is crucial to determine the elements that are recognizable and stand out in people’s minds. ExxonMobil’s mark consists of its registered mark ESSO being placed in a position and text size that can be readily seen in the layout. Moreover, the mark ESSO has been used in Thailand over a long period of time and has gained public recognition in Thailand and overseas. The Court recognized that the ESSO mark is recognizable and stands out in people’s minds, and thus it is the dominant element of the mark when considering the mark’s distinctiveness—even though it is smaller in size than the pictured service station and fuel dispensers.

In addition, the Court noted that ExxonMobil’s mark is different from other marks because it features other invented words—“Fuel Technology” and “Synergy”—plus an arbitrary placement of colors and shapes as elements of the service station and fuel dispensers. These are also dominant elements to be considered when examining the mark’s distinctiveness because they contribute to the general public’s ability to recognize that the goods and services bearing this mark originate from ExxonMobil.

The DIP then appealed the case to the Court of Appeal for Specialized Cases, which agreed that ExxonMobil’s mark is inherently distinctive and registrable under the Thai Trademark Act, because the well-known ESSO mark enables the public to understand that the goods bearing this mark originate from ExxonMobil. However, the Court held a differing opinion from the IP&IT Court regarding the service station and fuel dispensers featured in the mark, pointing out that the physical characteristics of these elements are common to service stations and fuel dispensers in general. Therefore, these elements are descriptive and are not subject to exclusive rights, though the mark as a whole remains inherently distinctive.

In our opinion, these judgments are valid proof that both courts have moved toward taking a more positive judicial perspective of nontraditional trademarks in Thailand. For this case, even though the Court of Appeal for Specialized Cases determined that the physical characteristics of the service station and fuel dispensers featured in the mark are descriptive, it found ExxonMobil’s mark inherently distinctive in its entirety and accepted it for registration. Overall, the judgment stands as a remarkable development in the acceptance of nontraditional trademarks in Thailand and will likely encourage brand owners to seek trademark protection for new types of marks.

This article first appeared in Managing Intellectual Property.

Related Professionals

Practices

Intellectual Property

Location

RELATED INSIGHTS​ 

June 24, 2026
Patent enablement requirements are provided under Article 102 of Vietnam’s Law on Intellectual Property (IP Law). In particular, a patent specification must “fully and clearly disclose the nature of the invention to such an extent that, based on the specification, a person having ordinary skill in the relevant art can implement the invention.” In pharmaceutical and biotechnology patents, this requirement is more complicated and subject to more rigorous assessment. The Patent Examination Guidelines (Guidelines) of the Intellectual Property Office of Vietnam (IP Office) were amended in March 2026 to introduce Annexes III and IV for the pharmaceutical and biotechnology sectors, in which Annex III provides detailed guidelines on the assessment of specification requirements. These amendments were made under a project for strengthening capacity in industrial property examination between the Japan International Cooperation Agency (JICA) and the IP Office. Annex III provides detailed instructions on how examiners assess enablement in a pharmaceutical or biotechnology application, and offers examples of acceptable and unacceptable descriptions with regard to the enablement aspect. Enablement Requirements in Pharma and Biotech Patents Article 12.7 of Circular 10/2026/TT-BKHCN (Circular 10) adds to the requirements of Article 102 of the IP Law that the description must demonstrate the novelty, inventive step, and industrial applicability of the technical solution. For pharmaceutical composition subject matters, Article 12.9 of Circular 10 sets out that the description must present the results of clinical trials and/or the pharmacological effects of the claimed pharmaceutical composition, and must include at least the following information: Substance/mixture used. Testing method (system) employed. Information on the test results. Correlation between the pharmacological effects obtained from the tests and the application of the pharmaceutical product in the prevention, diagnosis, and treatment of diseases. The Guidelines note that pharmacological study results should be presented in a quantified manner, and pharmacological
Read More
June 16, 2026
Since the implementation of the Trademark Law 2019 on April 1, 2023, Myanmar has operated under a modern first-to-file trademark system that brings its registration framework closer to international practice. As the new regime continues to develop in practice, applicants are increasingly required to navigate formal examination requirements, substantive objections, and procedural deadlines with greater precision. This article provides a high-level review of the trademark examination process in Myanmar, focusing on the principal stages from initial review to approval, the types of objections commonly raised by the Intellectual Property Department (IPD), and the key considerations for responding effectively. A clear understanding of these issues is essential for applicants seeking to secure registration efficiently and to mitigate avoidable delays or refusals. Examination Process: Key Stages Trademark applications filed with the IPD undergo two stages of review. Formality Examination The IPD first verifies compliance with procedural requirements, including: Correct Nice Classification Clear mark representation Accurate applicant details Clearly defined goods or services Representative details, if the application is filed by a representative Other formality requirements cover translation and transliteration of any non-English or non-Myanmar elements in the mark, color claim details, applicable disclaimers, and payment of official fees. Deficiencies result in an office action requiring correction within 30 days, which may be extended upon request. Registrability Examination The IPD also assesses registrability. A mark may be refused if it: Lacks distinctiveness Is descriptive or generic Misleads the public or violates public order/morality Contains prohibited state symbols Only compliant applications proceed to publication. Responding to Office Actions Applicants must respond within 30 days of notification from the IPD. Depending on the nature of the objection, strategies may include submitting legal arguments for distinctiveness, providing evidence of acquired distinctiveness, filing appropriate disclaimers, clarifying descriptions such as color claims, or amending the listed goods
Read More
June 15, 2026
The surge in AI development has led to a desperate demand for large, high-quality training data. However, real-world data can be expensive to collect, difficult to access, and often subject to strict privacy and regulatory constraints. Synthetic data, which consists of artificially generated records that replicate the statistical properties of real-world data without reproducing specific individuals’ information, provides an appealing solution by generating artificial datasets at scale without relying on identifiable personal information. It combines speed, cost efficiency, and regulatory compliance, making it a sensible alternative for organizations seeking to reduce risks while maintaining data utility. When properly anonymized, synthetic datasets may fall outside the scope of laws such as the EU’s General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR) or Thailand’s Personal Data Protection Act (PDPA), reducing compliance burdens while still supporting high-quality model training. However, relying on synthetic data without rigorous legal due diligence could be a strategic mistake. It replaces one set of known risks (scraping, direct privacy liability) with a new set of complex liabilities. The narrative that synthetic data is a “silver bullet” for privacy and IP compliance is dangerous and could be misleading. While synthetic data addresses data scarcity, it also introduces new legal uncertainties. Legal counsel should anticipate downstream risks arising from compromised data sources. Models trained on unlawfully obtained data may need to be decommissioned, even if their outputs appear lawful. What is synthetic data? Synthetic data refers to artificially generated information created using AI techniques such as deep learning and generative models. Instead of copying real records, it reproduces the statistical patterns and relationships found in the original dataset. Synthetic data generally falls into three categories: Fully synthetic data – Entirely new data points generated from learned patterns. The model studies the structure of the original data and produces records that resemble real-world
Read More
June 10, 2026
In March 2026, the Intellectual Property Office of Vietnam (IP Office) issued a decision refusing a trademark application after considering an opposition based primarily on copyright grounds. The outcome is noteworthy because the foreign brand owner had neither trademark registrations nor applications in Vietnam at the time the opposition was filed, and the IP Office has historically applied a stringent approach to oppositions relying on copyright. The Opposition Maurten is a well-known Swedish sports nutrition brand recognized globally for its innovative hydrogel technology, which is designed to help endurance athletes fuel more effectively without gastrointestinal discomfort. The brand’s distinctive logo is characterized by clean lines and a bold black-and-white color scheme, and has long been associated with the company’s performance products. The brand’s logo is displayed above. An identical mark was filed for registration by a Vietnamese trademark squatter. In 2023, a Vietnamese individual filed an application for registration of an identical mark (Application No. 4-2023-38668), a practice commonly observed in Vietnam as trademark squatting. The brand owner engaged Tilleke & Gibbins to assist with strategy and filing an opposition to the mark. At the time, Maurten had no trademark rights or meaningful use in Vietnam, and global marketing data showed only modest figures without any local presence. Thus, to convince the IP Office to refuse the squatter’s application, instead of relying on trademark rights or use evidence, the opposition strategy centered on the copyright protection of the logo itself, as copyright arises automatically in Vietnam upon creation of the work and does not require registration. (It is worth noting, however, that the IP Office has traditionally been cautious in accepting copyright as a basis for refusing trademark applications.) On September 24, 2024, an opposition was filed on three main grounds: confusing similarity, copyright infringement of the artistic work,
Read More