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 20, 2026
Vietnam’s Law on Bankruptcy and Rehabilitation No. 142/2025/QH15, passed by the National Assembly on December 11, 2025, does something many regional counterparts do not yet attempt: it instructs parties and arbitral tribunals on exactly what happens to an arbitration once a debtor becomes insolvent. Together with the Law on Commercial Arbitration No. 54/2010/QH12, the new law improves upon what used to be an uncertain area of practice, now providing an explicit, mandatory sequence of procedures. Suspension and Termination of Arbitration Proceedings Under article 40(2) of the law, once a Vietnamese court accepts a bankruptcy petition, any arbitration that concerns the debtor’s financial obligations must be temporarily suspended as soon as the tribunal receives the court’s notification. If the court subsequently issues a decision commencing bankruptcy proceedings, article 59(2) takes a further step: the suspended arbitration is terminated outright, and the underlying case file is transferred to the court handling the insolvency for resolution. The two provisions work as a sequence: first suspension, then termination and transfer, rather than as independent triggers. Meanwhile, article 60(4) reinforces this effect by vesting the bankruptcy court with exclusive jurisdiction over all claims against the debtor from the date the petition is accepted. Notably, this mechanism operates automatically, without the need for the insolvency court to issue a separate anti-arbitration order. The tribunal simply suspends or terminates the proceeding by operation of law once notified; however, Vietnamese law currently provides no procedure by which a party can apply to the insolvency court for permission to continue the arbitration despite the statutory effect. Practitioners with a Vietnamese counterparty in arbitration should treat notification of a bankruptcy filing as something to flag to the tribunal immediately since continuing to arbitrate a claim that has become subject to article 40(2) or 59(2) risks producing an award vulnerable
Read More
August 20, 2026
Thai law contains no provision that speaks directly to what happens to an arbitration when one of the parties becomes insolvent. The interaction between arbitration and insolvency is derived instead from the general operation of two separately drafted laws: the Bankruptcy Act B.E. 2483 (1940) and the Arbitration Act B.E. 2545 (2002). Because Thai courts have had few opportunities to interpret how these two statutes apply together, the practical answer to many questions, such as who represents an insolvent party in arbitration, whether an award will be enforced, and what happens to a foreign proceeding, depends on inference from general principles of insolvency, arbitration, and procedural law rather than on settled rules. Liquidation and Restructuring The Bankruptcy Act governs both liquidation, which winds up a debtor’s affairs, and restructuring (rehabilitation), which aims to preserve a business. The consequences for arbitration differ accordingly. In liquidation, the debtor’s assets vest in the official receiver, who alone can conduct or continue any arbitration affecting the estate; the debtor loses the authority to act on its own behalf. In restructuring, the plan preparer or administrator takes over that role, but there is more room for the debtor to remain involved, since the objective of rehabilitation is to keep the business operational. Restructuring carries an automatic stay that takes effect once the Bankruptcy Court accepts the restructuring petition. This stay can halt an arbitration regardless of where it is seated. In contrast, liquidation does not work through a stay; instead, the debtor’s loss of authority over its own assets and disputes is what constrains the arbitration. Neither proceeding provides a party a formal route to apply for permission to continue arbitrating—the Bankruptcy Act contains no such mechanism—though in restructuring cases the Bankruptcy Court may allow proceedings to continue where doing so will not prejudice
Read More
August 20, 2026
As part of its membership in Lex Mundi, Tilleke & Gibbins has released the latest edition of its Guide to Doing Business in Thailand, providing an overview of the legal, regulatory, and commercial considerations for companies establishing or expanding operations in Thailand. The 2026 edition offers practical insight into the country’s business environment, investment framework, and operational requirements. The guide covers a wide range of topics relevant to foreign and domestic investors, including: Investment incentives and promotion schemes Financial facilities and banking regulations Exchange controls and money transfers Import and export regulations Business structures and incorporation options Requirements for establishing a business Operational and compliance considerations Business cessation and insolvency procedures Employment and labor laws Taxation Immigration and visa requirements Prepared by Tilleke & Gibbins lawyers across multiple practice areas, the publication outlines key aspects of doing business in Thailand, including foreign investment restrictions, regulatory compliance obligations, corporate structures, employment requirements, and recent legal and economic developments affecting investors. The publication forms part of Lex Mundi’s Country Guides series, a global collection of jurisdiction-specific reference materials prepared by member firms around the world. Together, these guides help companies evaluate opportunities, compare regulatory environments, and plan international business activities across multiple markets. The full Guide to Doing Business in Thailand 2026 is available through the button below.
Read More
August 19, 2026
Arbitration clauses and national court jurisdiction have long existed in a delicate equilibrium, and nowhere is that equilibrium tested more often than in the drafting of multitier dispute resolution clauses. Such clauses—requiring negotiation before arbitration—are ubiquitous in international construction contracts, and they frequently employ permissive vocabulary at the arbitration tier. The formulation “either party may submit the dispute to arbitration” is intended to signal that either side is entitled to initiate proceedings. Yet it is periodically seized upon by claimants who prefer national courts, on the theory that “may” preserves a parallel right to litigate. Each apex-court pronouncement on this question is therefore significant for drafting practice and forum predictability. In 2019, the Thai Supreme Court delivered Thailand’s clearest answer to date (Judgment No. 3427/2562). Reversing an appellate court decision, the Supreme Court held that permissive wording at the point of commencement does not dilute the parties’ antecedent agreement to withdraw their disputes from the courts—doing so in regard to an International Chamber of Commerce (ICC) arbitration clause seated in Singapore, a configuration typical of foreign-invested projects in Thailand. This article examines the court’s reasoning, situates the decision within comparative jurisprudence, and draws out its practical lessons for parties and drafters operating in the Thai market. Background of the Dispute The dispute arose from a subcontract for civil engineering and architectural works concluded on September 25, 2014. Clause 19 of the subcontract governed dispute resolution. Clause 19.1 required the parties, at the request of either, to seek to resolve any dispute “in connection with, arising out of, or relating to” the subcontract through mutual consultation within sixty days of written notice. According to clause 19.2.1, if the dispute could not be resolved within that period, “either party may submit the dispute to arbitration,” to be conducted under the ICC
Read More