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

December 6, 2018

Thai Supreme Court Rules on Bad Faith of Franchisee Imitating Franchisor’s Trademark

Subscribe to Updates
Informed Counsel

A franchise agreement is a legally binding contract between a franchisor and a franchisee, specifying the rights, costs, and responsibilities of the parties in the franchising relationship. A typical component of a franchise agreement is a clause allowing the franchisee to use the franchisor’s intellectual property assets, such as trademarks, to reap the commercial benefits of a successful brand or business model.   

Extensive experience in Thailand has shown that if a franchisor allows a franchisee to use its unregistered trademarks without a specific clause detailing proprietary rights, the parties can easily become embroiled in a struggle over ownership of the marks. Typically, these disputes emerge from an ambiguously written clause stating that the franchisor permits the franchisee to “use” the trademarks in Thailand, without further clarification declaring the owner’s rights to those marks. Imprecise drafting may open up an avenue for the franchisee to misinterpret the contract—intentionally or not—leading to a result unintended by the marks’ rightful owner.   

This article highlights a recent case in which the Supreme Court addressed an ownership dispute and bad-faith circumstances of a franchisee by focusing on a questionable clause in the franchise agreement regarding the IP in question.

Background of Contentious Interpretation   

The franchisor and trademark owner (the Plaintiff) had registered its trademark in another country, but had not done so in Thailand. The franchisee (the Defendant) was contractually permitted in the franchise agreement to “use” the franchisor’s trademark in Thailand. During the valid term of the contract, the franchisee sneakily filed and registered copycat marks in Thailand, imitating the true owner’s trademark.

As soon as registration of the marks was approved by the Trademark Office, the Defendant terminated the franchise agreement to concentrate on its own business operations under the newly registered trademarks. The Plaintiff, understandably irritated, took legal action against its former franchisee by requesting the cancellation of the imitated trademarks on the basis of better rights. All of the initial decisions were in favor of the true trademark owner, resulting in a court order to revoke the Defendant’s imitated trademarks. However, the Defendant took its claims to the Supreme Court.

Insight on the Court’s View

One of the central questions that arose during this case was “Who is the owner of the trademarks: the Plaintiff or the Defendant?” The court followed a well-settled legal framework to determine the answer.

The court reviewed previous franchisor-franchisee disputes related to trademark ownership in an effort to establish the grounds of better rights for the Plaintiff and bad faith of the Defendant. The court also considered written agreements, and found that they addressed the ownership of the trademark as belonging to the Plaintiff. While this evidence was already persuasive, the Supreme Court in case No. 2553-2554/2561 also looked at general factors to determine ownership of the trademark, including the following:

  • Who invented the trademark?
  • Who was the first party to register the trademark, whether in Thailand or overseas?
  • Who exported the goods bearing the trademark to Thailand?
  • Which party was authorized to allow another party to use and register the trademark in Thailand?
  • Which party was first to see, recognize, or know the trademark?
  • Was there an incident indicating acceptance of ownership by another party?

Ultimately, the court found that the above factors also weighed in favor of the Plaintiff because the Defendant could not establish rights to the trademarks prior to the time the franchising relationship began.    

In addition to determining the Plaintiff’s better rights, the court also examined the Defendant’s intention. During the proceedings, the Defendant admitted to seeing the Plaintiff’s trademarks at trade fairs in other countries before entering into the franchise agreement. Therefore, the court concluded that the Defendant had seen and known the trademarks prior to filing its trademark applications in Thailand. This fact, along with the Defendant’s inability to rebut the analysis of the court regarding the ownership of the trademarks, showed that the Defendant had filed its applications in bad faith to benefit from the Plaintiff’s reputation.   

The court ruled that the franchisor was the party who invented and owned the rights to the trademarks, and that the franchisee acted in bad faith by registering trademarks that imitated those of the franchisor, resulting in the franchisee’s trademarks being canceled.

Lessons Learned

While the trademark owner was victorious in this case, similar scenarios in the future might not have as positive an outcome. Franchise relationships are one of the most common forms of foreign indirect investment in Thailand, but franchisors should recognize the risks they bear if the franchise agreement is not precisely drafted and the franchisee is not loyal in its business practices. In some cases, franchisees are happy to transfer trademark registrations to the true owner, but the costs can be substantial. There is also a great risk that trademark applications filed by a franchisee never come to the trademark owner’s attention until there is a dispute or the parties stop working together.

Experienced IP lawyers can make significant contributions when preparing a precise and thorough franchise agreement, ensuring the inclusion of comprehensive clauses on the ownership of the IP subsisting in the products or services, the franchisor’s right to use such IP—including the commonly granted right to use the franchisor’s trade name as part of the franchisee’s company name or domain name—and setting strict limitations on such rights during the term and after the expiration of the franchise agreement.

By carrying out the simple acts of trademark registration in the name of the original owner and careful drafting of agreements, a franchisor can easily avoid an unnecessary trial or the possibility that a former franchisee may infringe on the rights to its marks.
 

Download Full Article
Related Professionals

Practices

Dispute Resolution and Litigation

Intellectual Property

Location

RELATED INSIGHTS​ 

January 20, 2026
Arbitrations seated in Thailand are governed principally by the Arbitration Act B.E. 2545 (2002) and, where applicable, the rules of institutions such as the Thailand Arbitration Center (THAC) and the Thai Arbitration Institute (TAI). While these instruments set the core procedural structure, they are not comprehensive. To fill in these procedural gaps, arbitral tribunals often look to the Thai Civil Procedure Code (CPC) and apply its principles when the Arbitration Act or institutional rules are silent. This hybrid system is familiar to local practitioners but can surprise international parties who expect a more self-contained arbitral procedure. Examples of How CPC Principles Are Applied Evidence Management: Section 25 of the Arbitration Act requires equal treatment of the parties and guarantees each side a full opportunity to present its case. At the same time, it grants tribunals broad discretion to conduct proceedings “as it deems appropriate” and expressly suggests that arbitrators may apply the CPC evidence rules where appropriate. In practice, tribunals frequently apply CPC evidence rules when addressing: submission of evidence lists, late or additional evidence, questions of admissibility and relevance, and assessment of witness and expert testimony. Amendments to Pleadings: Because the Arbitration Act and institutional rules provide limited guidance on amending pleadings, tribunals often rely on CPC principles when parties seek to amend a statement of claim or defense. Amendments may be permitted if they are sought in a timely manner, do not unfairly prejudice the opposing party, do not cause undue delay, and do not alter the nature of the dispute. These conditions closely mirror the standards applied by Thai courts under the CPC. Subpoenas and Court Assistance: Arbitral tribunals seated in Thailand generally do not have inherent subpoena powers. Section 33 of the Arbitration Act fills this gap by permitting the tribunal, an individual arbitrator, or a
Read More
January 14, 2026
Employers operating in Thailand can enforce post-employment noncompete covenants, but success depends on precise drafting and strong evidentiary support. Thai courts will uphold restraints that protect legitimate employer interests and are fair and reasonable in duration, geographic reach, and substantive scope. Overbroad covenants, however, draw judicial skepticism and may fail unless they are drafted in severable, defensible components tied to the employee’s actual role. This article synthesizes recent trends in Thai case practice, explains how Thai courts assess reasonableness in employment restraints, and provides a practical litigation-focused framework for drafting enforceable covenants, preparing evidence, and pursuing relief through the Labor Court. The Legal Framework and Its Practical Implications Thai courts evaluate noncompete covenants under general principles of contract enforceability and public policy, with particular focus on whether a restraint is necessary to protect a legitimate employer interest and proportionate to that objective. In employment matters, this analysis is shaped by the employee-protective tenor of Thai labor law and by the Labor Court’s equitable discretion in determining appropriate remedies. The practical takeaway is that standardized or broadly drafted covenants rarely survive scrutiny. Courts look for a demonstrable nexus between the employee’s actual exposure to confidential information, trade secrets, or customer relationships and the scope of the restraint. Where that nexus is weak or the restraint operates as a blanket prohibition, courts are inclined to decline enforcement or limit relief to a narrowly tailored prohibition. The employer interests most commonly recognized as legitimate in Thai practice include the protection of trade secrets, confidential business information, and goodwill tied to identifiable customer segments or territories. Courts are more likely to enforce restraints where employers can clearly document what information is at risk, why particular customer relationships matter, and how the employee was involved with those assets. Judges also look closely at the
Read More
January 8, 2026
Doing business in Thailand means operating under a strict regulatory framework. From time to time, companies may receive unexpected administrative orders from government authorities that restrict their operations, impose new compliance obligations, or levy fines and penalties. When this happens, a business may challenge the order under Thailand’s administrative law system. The primary concern in pursuing administrative litigation is timing, as strict statutory deadlines apply and missing them can permanently affect a company’s rights. First Step: Administrative Appeal Many companies assume the first step is to immediately bring the matter before the Administrative Court to seek revocation or suspension of the order. Some even attempt to request an interim injunction to stop the order from taking effect. However, Thai law generally requires that the company first challenge the order through an administrative appeal with the same agency that issued it. Only after this process is complete can the matter be taken to court. Seeking an interim injunction at this stage is also not possible. This is because Thai law does not allow a standalone application for an interim injunction; an injunction can only be requested together with the underlying complaint filed with the Administrative Court. Since a court complaint cannot be filed until the administrative appeal process has been exhausted, an injunction is usually not available at the early stage. What Are the Timeframes for Administrative Appeal? Thailand applies a two-stage administrative appeal process. The appeal must first be submitted to the same authority that issued the order, which will review its own decision. If that authority affirms its decision, the appeal is then escalated to the relevant higher authority for further review. In most cases, both stages must be completed before a company is allowed to proceed to court. The timeframe for filing an administrative appeal is very
Read More
December 30, 2025
The Intellectual Property Office of Vietnam (IP Office), with support from the Japan International Cooperation Agency (JICA), is drafting additional annexes to its Guidelines for Patent Examination, focusing on the examination of patent applications in the pharmaceutical and biotechnology sectors. The new annexes are expected to be officially issued in early 2026 as Annexes III and IV, following the successful issuance in 2023 of Annexes I and II addressing computer program-related inventions. The IP Office recently organized a seminar to gather feedback on the draft annexes from intellectual property representatives, academic institutions, research institutes, and other interested parties, emphasizing its intention to receive further constructive opinions to refine the guidelines for pharmaceuticals and biotechnology. Why These Guidelines Matter Patent examination in Vietnam has traditionally relied on the Guidelines for Patent Examination issued under Decision No. 487/QD-SHTT (2010), recently supplemented by Annexes I and II. While these documents provide a solid foundation, they do not fully address practical challenges in examining pharmaceutical and biotech inventions, particularly issues related to clarity, sufficiency of disclosure, enablement, features of function and utility, combination therapies, and inventions involving artificial intelligence (AI) applications in these fields. Annexes III and IV aim to close these gaps by introducing structured principles and illustrative examples. Guidance on Patent Specification Requirements Annex III provides detailed guidance on the requirements for patent specifications in pharmaceuticals and biotechnology, covering two main parts: Part A addresses sufficiency of disclosure, clarity of specifications, and consistency between claims and descriptions. Part B covers inventions related to Markush-type compounds, claims containing exclusion statements (disclaimers), and additional experimental data submitted during examination. The Guidelines outline specific disclosure requirements for subject matters such as compounds, formulations, pharmaceutical compositions, genes, polypeptides, proteins, vectors, transgenic organisms, modified organisms, and hybrid cells. Annex III emphasizes that disclaimers are not accepted
Read More