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

September 20, 2018

Thai Supreme Court Accepts the Concept of Trademark Family

Subscribe to Updates
AIPPI E-News

During the trademark registration process, the similarity of trademarks is determined by comparing the trademark with another registered trademark. This process may disadvantage trademark owners who own a so-called “family of trademarks.” A recent Supreme Court judgment opened the possibility of allowing a trademark owner to claim exclusive rights over the common elements of such a family of marks in Thailand for the first time.

Valentino’s Trademark Family

Valentino’s group of marks have been recognized by consumers for the common characteristic word “Valentino” as well as device marks featuring a  or  symbol, and other composite marks. Valentino’s family marks have been used in such a way that the public associates not only the individual marks, but also the common characteristics of the family of marks, with the trademark owner.

AiTrademark Dispute

Although Valentino S.P.A. had successfully registered a substantial number of trademarks containing the word “Valentino” worldwide, the “Valentino” trademarks in Thailand were challenged by competitor “Valentino Rudy,” raising the issue of whether the word “Valentino” of Valentino S.P.A. is non-distinctive due to being a widely-used Italian name.

Valentino Rudy contended that the word “Valentino” is a general surname which is non-distinctive, successfully convincing the Registrar and the Board of Trademarks. Valentino S.P.A. disagreed with the decisions and pursued the dispute, ultimately leading to a final judgment at the Supreme Court.

The Court’s View

Ruling in favor of Valentino S.P.A. and refusing to allow “Valentino Rudy” to be registered, the Supreme Court took the view that the word “Valentino,” as the personal name of Mr. Valentino Garavani, is not considered to be an ordinary person’s name or a surname known to the general public in Thailand, or to be descriptive of the characteristics of the goods. Therefore, “Valentino” is inherently distinctive.

After considering the context of the “Valentino” series of trademarks above, the Court was of the view that the common element “Valentino” can be associated with a group of goods that are produced or sold by the same proprietor.

In this case the third party had applied to protect the Valentino Rudy mark for the same type of products as the VALENTINO family of marks. It was apparent to the Court that the substantial portion of the trademark shares the identical word “Valentino” with Valentino S.P.A., despite the mark being stylized as a signature and the addition of the word “Rudy.” Such difference is immaterial to the impression of the general public as to the VALENTINO family of marks.

The Supreme Court held that parties’ marks were similar, based on the trademark family principle. The shared characteristics may therefore cause confusion to the public as to the group of Valentino S.P.A.’s trademarks and the source of the goods.

Conclusion

This is the first lawsuit in which Thailand’s Supreme Court has explicitly accepted the concept of “Trademark Family.” It is interesting to note that the Court not only considered the similarity of the trademarks, but also considered a substantial group of related trademarks and then compared their similarities.

Consideration of similarity based on the principle of a “Trademark Family,” in which marks are widely recognized and proven to be sufficiently indicative of the origin of products, can lead to the protection of similar characteristics, preventing any second comers whose marks share characteristics with that trademark family, even if the overall appearance of the trademark is not similar to any specific registered trademark. This new approach brings about considerable benefit to traders seeking to develop their trademarks.

Related Professionals

Practices

Dispute Resolution and Litigation

Intellectual Property

Location

RELATED INSIGHTS​ 

September 14, 2026
Myanmar’s first-to-file trademark registration regime under the Trademark Law 2019—which became fully operational in April 2023—provides mark owners with enhanced legal protection compared with the country’s former system. Correspondingly, the current system imposes more rigorous statutory requirements for obtaining, maintaining, and enforcing rights in marks. In this first-to-file trademark registration system, however, evidence of use remains particularly significant, as it may establish acquired distinctiveness, support a claim that a mark is well-known, and strengthen the owner’s position in both registration and enforcement proceedings. Accordingly, it can be said that this framework is underpinned by three key concepts: distinctiveness, well-known status, and, importantly, use of the trademark. Trademark Distinctiveness Under the Trademark Law, signs that lack distinctiveness are generally ineligible for mark protection. These signs include generic terms, basic shapes, unstylized single letters or numerals, and signs that merely describe the kind, quality, quantity, intended purpose, value, geographical origin, production time, or other characteristics of the relevant goods or services. However, a mark that would otherwise be refused on distinctiveness or descriptiveness grounds may be registrable if it has acquired distinctiveness through its use prior to the filing date. To show this, the applicant must demonstrate that the mark became distinctive to relevant consumers through continuous, exclusive, and good-faith use in trade within Myanmar. The burden of proving acquired distinctiveness rests with the mark owner. Accordingly, sufficient evidence demonstrating both use of the mark and the level of consumer recognition attained should be prepared in advance. Well-Known Mark Criteria Myanmar’s Trademark Rules, which govern the substantive examination of mark registration applications, establish criteria for determining well-known marks, aligned with international standards. Where an applicant claims well-known status—whether to overcome a refusal on relative grounds or to oppose a third party’s registration—the registrar will assess the claim based on the following
Read More
September 14, 2026
On August 23, 2026, Vietnam’s National Assembly passed Law No. 11/2026/QH16, amending the country’s Customs Law with effect from March 1, 2027. The amendments represent a substantial reform of Vietnam’s customs-based intellectual property enforcement regime. The reforms come amid considerable external pressure. In its 2026 Special 301 review, the US Trade Representative (USTR) designated Vietnam a “priority foreign country,” citing widespread counterfeiting, weak border enforcement, limited ex officio customs powers, and the absence of controls over goods in transit. Vietnam’s legislative response signals a commitment to bringing its border enforcement practices into line with international expectations. For IP rights holders operating in or through Vietnam, the amended law introduces several tools that substantially strengthen enforcement options at the border. Closing the Transit Gap One of the most consequential amendments is the extension of IP-related customs enforcement to goods in transit. Previously, Vietnam’s customs regime applied IP controls only to goods being imported or exported, a gap the USTR had specifically identified as enabling infringing goods to pass through Vietnamese ports with impunity. Vietnam’s geographic position as a logistics hub for Southeast Asia means that substantial volumes of goods transit its ports and free-trade zones. Extending enforcement to cover these shipments brings Vietnam closer to the standard set by the EU’s customs enforcement regulation and addresses a longstanding concern of multinational brand owners whose goods are frequently counterfeited in the region. Strengthened Suspension and Ex Officio Powers The amended law introduces a dual-track suspension mechanism (Article 73(2)). Customs authorities will suspend clearance upon request by an IP rights holder (or authorized representative) who provides evidence of IP ownership, evidence of infringement, and a financial guarantee. Customs can now proactively suspend clearance on an ex officio basis if, during inspection and monitoring, they discover “clear grounds” to suspect that imported, exported,
Read More
September 7, 2026
Indonesia’s Constitutional Court (Mahkamah Konstitusi) has reinstated a key provision limiting pharmaceutical patent protection, signaling a renewed commitment to balancing patent rights with public access to medicines. In its ruling to Case No. 255/PUU-XXIII/2025, the court partially granted a petition for judicial review of Law No. 65 of 2024, which had amended the country’s Patent Law, and ordered the restoration of a provision that had excluded certain pharmaceutical inventions from patentability. The decision took effect immediately upon its pronouncement at the court’s plenary session on August 28, 2026. Background The petition challenged the removal of article 4(f) from Law No. 13 of 2016 concerning Patents (Patent Law), as amended by Law No. 65 of 2024. Article 4(f) had excluded from patentability certain inventions relating to new uses of known substances. The petitioners argued that removing this provision would open the door to patent protection for second medical use inventions and facilitate patent evergreening—practices that can extend exclusivity periods, delay generic market entry, and reduce public access to affordable medicines. The petitioners included several patient advocacy and public-interest organizations: the Indonesian Dialysis Patients Community Association, the Indonesian Association of Drug Abuse Victims (PKNI), the Indonesian Pulmonary Hypertension Foundation (YHPI), the Rekat Peduli Indonesia Foundation, and the Indonesian Positive Women’s Association (IPPI), along with the Indonesia for Global Justice Association and four individual petitioners. The petitioners also challenged the constitutionality of the phrase “interested party” in article 70(1) of the Patent Law, arguing that it should be construed expressly to clarify who has standing to appeal a decision to grant a patent before the Board of Patent Appeal, and to allow a broader range of parties—such as patent holders, licensees, consumer organizations, prosecutors, aggrieved third parties, and others who may suffer direct or indirect harm from the grant of a patent—to
Read More
September 4, 2026
Thailand’s cabinet has approved two draft amendments aimed at improving labor-related judicial proceedings. The proposed amendments to the Act on the Establishment of Labor Courts and Labor Case Procedure B.E. 2522 (1979) and the Act on Procedures for Human Trafficking Cases B.E. 2559 (2016) are intended to make the process more efficient, appropriate, and fair. Key elements of these proposed amendments are outlined below. Expansion of Labor Court Jurisdiction Under the current framework, labor courts generally hear labor disputes, while criminal offenses under labor laws are handled separately. Matters involving both labor and criminal issues may therefore require the parties to pursue proceedings before different courts. To address this, the proposed amendments would expand the jurisdiction of labor courts to cover certain criminal offenses under labor laws. The government states that the change is intended to allow related issues to be heard by judges with expertise in labor law and to reduce the need for parallel proceedings. The proposed amendments also set out the following rules for cases involving multiple offenses. Where a single act gives rise to multiple offenses and at least one of those offenses falls within the jurisdiction of the labor court, the labor court may hear the related offenses as part of the same case. Where multiple connected acts give rise to different offenses, the labor court may hear the matters together or transfer part of the case to the appropriate court, taking into account convenience and the interests of justice. Criminal Offenses Covered The proposed amendments would extend labor court jurisdiction to criminal offenses under 11 labor-related laws, including laws concerning: Home workers protection Labor protection Labor protection in fisheries work Employment and job-seeker protection Management of foreign workers Social security Occupational safety, health, and working environment Compensation Maritime labor State enterprise labor relations
Read More