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

May 23, 2016

Thailand: Record Damages Awarded in Trademark Case

Subscribe to Updates
Managing Intellectual Property

“Born in Canada, Living in London, Made in Italy” is the brand motto of Dsquared2, the famous international fashion brand originally created by Dean and Dan Caten, twin brothers from Canada who have used the series of trademarks D2, DSQUARED, D2 DSQUARED2, and DSQUARED2 since 1994.

The trademarks were filed in many countries under the name Belmont Brands Ltd., and they were subsequently assigned to DSquared2 TM S.A. In Thailand, however, DSquared2 discovered that its trademarks had already been registered by a Thai company that is also in the fashion industry.

Not only were the trademarks already registered under the name of the local Thai company and its directors, but the Thai company had also opened shops in several major shopping malls in Bangkok under the infringing name, DSQUARED2.

In order to reclaim their rights to their brand, Belmont Brands Ltd., the plaintiff, and DSquared2 TM S.A., the coplaintiff and assignee of the trademarks from the plaintiff, brought a civil litigation case against the Thai company and its two directors. The case was filed at the Intellectual Property and International Trade Court (IP&IT Court) in April 2010.

The plaintiff requested the court to order the cancellation of all trademark applications and registrations of the first defendant that are similar to the plaintiff’s series of trademarks, namely D2, D2 DSQUARED, DSQUARED2, and DSQUARED. The plaintiff also requested the court to order the defendants to cease all use of the trade name DSQUARED2 as the name of their stores and jointly pay the compensation to the plaintiff.

In February 2011, the IP&IT Court pronounced its judgment naming the plaintiff as the original owner of the trademark DSQUARED2, reasoning that the plaintiff had a better right than the defendants to the disputed trademarks for the goods in Classes 3, 9, 14, 16, 18, 20, 24, 25, 26, and 35. The defendants were found to have passed off their products as the plaintiff’s for the purpose of confusing or misleading the public into believing that their products belonged to the plaintiff.

The IP&IT Court ordered that the defendants be prohibited from: (1) imitating the plaintiff’s trademarks and products; and (2) using DSQUARED2 as their trade name and the name of their stores. The Court subsequently cancelled the first defendant’s 17 registered trademarks as well as its one pending trademark application. The Court also ordered the defendants to compensate the plaintiff in the amount of THB 100,000 per month, calculated from the date the plaintiff filed the complaint until the defendants withdrew their registered trademarks, or the date the defendants ceased infringing on the plaintiff’s trademarks.

The defendants appealed the IP&IT Court’s decision to the Supreme Court in April 2011. In February 2016, the Supreme Court announced its judgment affirming the IP&IT Court’s judgment and amending only one issue—the defendants must pay compensation to the plaintiff in the amount of THB 100,000 per month from the date the plaintiff filed the complaint until the defendants cease infringing the plaintiff’s trademarks and products and cease using DSQUARED2 as their trade name and the name of their shops. The total compensation accumulated to approximately THB 6-7 million, which is believed to be the highest amount of compensation that defendants have ever been ordered to pay the plaintiff in a trademark litigation case based on “passing off.”

This will serve as a landmark case for international companies looking to operate a business in Thailand that fall victim to their trademarks and trade names being stolen by a local company. This case demonstrates that Thai trademark law provides effective means for original trademark owners to prove their better right over their marks. The amount of compensation granted by the Court is also improving as the Court increasingly recognizes the value of intellectual property and the damage that arises from infringement.

It is significant, however, that it took the legitimate owners of the mark nearly a decade to reach a resolution affirming their better right to the mark. This is an area where the Thai system could benefit from further improvement. In any event, trademark owners are encouraged to seek protection for their trademarks as soon as possible, as it will save them unnecessary stress, time, and costly legal disputes revolving around the legitimate owner of a mark.

Download Full Article
Related Professionals

Practices

Dispute Resolution and Litigation

Intellectual Property

Location

RELATED INSIGHTS​ 

August 28, 2026
When considering a franchise, many people first think of a restaurant, retail chain, or service outlet. From a legal perspective, however, the foundation of every franchise lies in the right to use a brand, which is typically granted through a trademark license. Trademarks are often the most valuable assets in a franchise system. Through a trademark license, a franchisor authorizes a franchisee to use its trademarks, logos, and branding while maintaining control over how the brand is presented to customers. The Role of Trademarks in Franchise Businesses Under the Trademark Law 2019, a mark is defined as a sign that is capable of distinguishing the goods or services of one undertaking from those of others in the course of trade. This distinguishing function is particularly important in a franchise arrangement, where the franchisee’s use of the franchisor’s trademark allows consumers to recognize the source, quality, and reputation of the business. In this way, trademarks help preserve brand identity, strengthen market recognition, and protect the commercial value of the franchise system. Legal Foundation for Franchise Brand Protection Myanmar presently does not have a specific statutory framework governing franchise arrangements. As a result, franchise agreements are generally regulated under the broader applicable legal framework, including the Contract Act 1872, the Trademark Law 2019, the Competition Law 2015, the Consumer Protection Law 2019, and the relevant implementing rules and regulations. The licensing of trademarks within a franchise arrangement is particularly governed by the Trademark Law 2019. Franchisors should ensure that the trademarks intended to be licensed to franchisees in Myanmar are registered under the Trademark Law 2019 and that the relevant trademark license is properly recorded with the Intellectual Property Department (IPD). Trademark License Recordal Under the Trademark Law 2019, the owner of a registered trademark may grant a license to another
Read More
August 27, 2026
It is generally understood that patents are granted for new designs that have not been widely known or used in Thailand and not been disclosed anywhere prior to the date of the patent application. It is trite law that design law protects the distinctive appearance or products. Under Section 3 of the Thai Patent Act B.E. 2522, as amended by the Patent Act (No. 2) B.E. 2535 and the Patent Act (No. 3) B.E. 2542, a design is defined as “any form or composition of lines or colors that gives a product a special appearance and can serve as a pattern for an industrial or handicraft product.” This raises an important question. Can a patent be issued for a product design that contains text, numerals, trademarks, or symbols that do not fall under the definition of a design? This issue commonly arises when attempting to register packaging, labels, and graphical user interfaces (GUIs). Until a few years ago, applicants could file design applications with the Thai Patent Office for designs that contained such elements, provided that an appropriate disclaimer was included. This practice was generally accepted by Thai design examiners at that time, but the Patent Office has since implemented a change in its practice that could have a significant impact on applicants for design patents. Where design representations are submitted as line drawings or computer-aided design (CAD) drawings, the examiner may now issue an office action requiring their removal. This practice, however, appears to be applied inconsistently, as some examiners still exercise their own discretion in determining whether drawings containing these elements are acceptable. Below are examples of a GUI design, a CAD drawing design, and a photographic design representation that illustrates issues relating to the presence of nonallowable elements. GUI design For this GUI design, the submitted
Read More
August 27, 2026
Franchising in Thailand has matured into a sizeable commercial sector, but the rules governing franchisor–franchisee relationships remain scattered across general legislation rather than consolidated in a dedicated franchise statute. In this environment, the decisions of the Trade Competition Commission of Thailand (TCCT) have emerged as valuable practical guidance. Thailand follows a civil-law system in which judicial and administrative decisions do not create binding precedent; however, past rulings are nonetheless influential. This article examines the most instructive recent TCCT decisions and distills the practical compliance considerations for franchisors and franchisees operating in Thailand. Postcontract Changes: Justified or Unfair? A recurring issue is whether a franchisor may alter the terms of engagement after contract execution. The TCCT has established that midterm modifications are not inherently unfair; the determinative factors are whether there was a reasonable business justification, adequate advance notice, and a transparent process. In a 2023 coffee franchise matter, for instance, the TCCT declined to find a violation where a franchisor increased raw material prices, noting the increase had been communicated in advance and supported by demonstrable cost pressures. A bubble tea franchise matter reinforces this principle. The TCCT found that postcontract mandatory purchases of branded syrup and flavorings were justified, as the agreement reserved the franchisor’s right to modify product requirements, the materials were sold at or below market prices, and the branded ingredients possessed distinctive qualities deemed essential to franchise quality. The complaint was dismissed, with the additional requirements characterized as a legitimate measure to preserve brand consistency. Considered together, these decisions indicate that post‑contract modifications will be evaluated against three criteria: (1) whether there is a legitimate business rationale, (2) whether adequate advance notice was provided, and (3) whether franchisees were treated equitably throughout the transition. Discriminatory Treatment: Are Renewals and Information Equal? A 2024 automotive dealership
Read More
August 24, 2026
Significant economic challenges facing Thailand in recent years have placed financial pressure on both individuals and businesses. As a result, many debtors may find themselves unable to meet their repayment obligations, leading to bankruptcy proceedings. When an individual or corporate debtor in Thailand is subject to bankruptcy proceedings, the Thai Bankruptcy Act B.E. 2483 (1940) provides a legal framework for collecting a debtor’s assets and using them to repay creditors. Under the Bankruptcy Act, creditors wishing to recover outstanding debts must file a debt repayment application (DRA), which is the primary mechanism for asserting claims in bankruptcy proceedings. However, the filing of a DRA is subject to specific legal requirements, procedural rules, deadlines, and supporting documentation. Failure to comply with these requirements may adversely affect a creditor’s ability to recover its claim. This article highlights the key considerations that creditors should be aware of when filing a DRA in a bankruptcy case in Thailand. Filing a DRA In a bankruptcy case, after the court issues an absolute receivership order, the debtor loses the authority to manage or dispose of its assets. Control over the debtor’s assets is transferred to the official receiver, a government official responsible for administering the bankruptcy estate in accordance with the Bankruptcy Act. Creditors seeking repayment of their debts must file a DRA with the official receiver within two months of the absolute receivership order being officially published in the Government Gazette. For creditors outside of Thailand, the official receiver may extend the filing period by up to an additional two months. These filing deadlines are strictly enforced. Failure to file within the prescribed period may result in the claim being barred, except in limited circumstances permitted by the Bankruptcy Act. Where a late filing is accepted due to force majeure, the creditor may only
Read More