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 24, 2026
Vietnam is implementing and developing a broad package of regulatory reforms that could reshape how IP, data, digital platforms, and product authenticity are regulated and enforced. Several of the key measures have been led by the Ministry of Public Security in its legislative and administrative capacity, as part of a broader government effort. The core reform package consists of four key legal instruments: proposed amendments to the Criminal Code, a proposed new Data Security Law, a draft Decree on Product Identification, Authentication and Traceability, and the newly enacted Decree No. 330/2026/ND-CP. These instruments include rules on criminal enforcement, data security, electronic identification, product identification and traceability, administrative violations, and cybersecurity sanctions. Combined, these measures will affect copyright enforcement, industrial property rights, trade secrets, AI training data, product provenance, online takedowns, valuation of counterfeit goods and electronic evidence. It is worth noting that, in addition to strengthening criminal penalties for IP crimes, Vietnam’s emerging regulatory framework increasingly treats infringement, data misuse, product authentication, and platform-enabled violations as interconnected regulatory and enforcement challenges. For rights holders and foreign investors, this could mean stronger tools against counterfeiting and online infringement, but also more compliance obligations around data, traceability, AI, platform controls and government-facing reporting. Expansion of Criminal IP Enforcement Proposed amendments to Article 225 of the Criminal Code would expand criminal copyright exposure beyond reproduction and distribution to cover large-scale commercial public performance and online communication of works, phonograms and video recordings. This is important because piracy is increasingly about streaming, unauthorized communication, and platform access models rather than physical copying. Aggravated copyright infringement could be subject to up to 10 years in prison for individuals and fines of up to VND 6 billion (about USD 228,300) for commercial legal entities. The amended Article 226 would expand criminal industrial property liability beyond
Read More
September 23, 2026
Arbitration under Thai law rests on consent. Section 11 of the Arbitration Act B.E. 2545 (2002) requires an arbitration agreement to be in writing and signed by the parties. This may also be satisfied by communications, an unchallenged allegation in pleadings, or incorporation by reference to a document containing an arbitration clause. A non-signatory cannot, as a general rule, be compelled to arbitrate merely because it participated in the transaction, received a benefit, or belongs to the corporate group of a signatory. Thai law nevertheless permits arbitration agreements and awards to affect third parties indirectly in limited circumstances. Under section 24, an arbitration clause is separable from the main contract; the invalidity of the contract does not invalidate the clause. In Supreme Court Judgment No. 3918/2563, an apparent sales contract concealed a construction contract and was void under the Civil and Commercial Code. However, the concealed construction contract and written arbitration clause remained effective. The tribunal had jurisdiction, and its award was enforceable under the Arbitration Act. Under the Arbitration Act, when a claim or liability is validly transferred, the transferee is bound by the related arbitration agreement. This includes assignment, transfer of obligations, legal succession, and subrogation. Depending on the facts and contract and agency law, consent may arise through execution by an authorized agent, ratification, assumption of obligations, or conduct accepting the contract and its arbitration clause. Thai law respects separate corporate personality. The group-of-companies doctrine has no statutory basis under the Arbitration Act, while alter egos or sham allegations require compelling evidence and an identifiable legal basis. Supreme Court Judgment No. 9161/2568 illustrates the procedural treatment of non-signatories. A consultancy contract required LCIA arbitration seated in Dubai. When the employer sued a consultant and his spouse in Thailand concerning a housing loan, the court disposed of
Read More
September 21, 2026
Thailand’s first-to-file trademark system has a serious vulnerability: it lacks both an explicit mechanism for refusing bad-faith registrations and any means of invalidating them in court after the five-year limitation period has expired. While brand owners worldwide confront trademark squatting, Thailand’s statutory silence stands out, particularly in light of AIPPI’s 2017 Resolution Q249, which recommended that every jurisdiction provide clear tools to address bad faith at all stages of the trademark lifecycle. Nearly a decade later, Thailand has yet to act. This article proposes a concrete reform blueprint, drawing on the legislative models of China, the United Kingdom, and the European Union. The Statutory Gap Under the Thai Trademark Act B.E. 2534, no provision expressly authorizes examiners to reject an application on grounds of bad faith. Section 8(10) addresses well-known marks but offers no relief where the targeted mark lacks well-known status. Practitioners have resorted to Section 8(9)—which bars marks “contrary to public order, morality, or public policy”—as a workaround. However, this provision was designed to address the characteristics of the mark itself, not the applicant’s intent. Thai Supreme Court decisions have split on whether it can reach bad-faith conduct, creating persistent legal uncertainty. The gap extends beyond examination. Civil actions to cancel a bad-faith registration must be brought within five years—a deadline that frequently expires before foreign brand owners discover the squatted mark. Cancellation through the Board of Trademarks remains available but is slow, costly, and subject to court appeal, leaving bad-faith registrations in force during protracted proceedings. The system effectively rewards squatters and penalizes legitimate owners. Lessons from International Best Practices Several major jurisdictions have already closed this gap. China’s 2019 amendment to Article 4 of the Trademark Law introduced an absolute ground for refusal: “bad faith trademark applications without intent to use shall be rejected.” Bad
Read More
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