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​ 

July 27, 2026
Tilleke & Gibbins’ intellectual property specialists have authored the Thailand chapter of Trade Secrets 2026 from Chambers and Partners. This global guide examines the legal frameworks governing trade secret protection, enforcement, and litigation across jurisdictions worldwide. The Thailand chapter provides a comprehensive overview of the country’s legal regime for protecting confidential business information, covering the legal framework, trade secret misappropriation, litigation procedures, remedies, and dispute resolution. Some topics covered include: Protectable trade secrets Reasonable measures to maintain secrecy Employee confidentiality Trade secret licensing Civil and criminal remedies Litigation procedures and injunctions Damages and other remedies Mediation and arbitration The guide also examines practical issues relating to safeguarding trade secrets, defending against allegations of misappropriation, and managing trade secret disputes in Thailand. Chambers and Partners’ Global Practice Guides provide in-house counsel with authoritative commentary on practical legal issues affecting business, enabling readers to compare legislation and procedures across multiple jurisdictions. The Thailand chapter of Trade Secrets 2026 is available as a PDF through the button below. The full guide can be accessed for free on the Chambers and Partners website.
Read More
July 27, 2026
In March 2025, Thailand’s Central Intellectual Property and International Trade Court (IP&IT Court) issued a landmark judgment in favor of Luckin Coffee, China’s leading retail coffee chain. The judgment marked a significant turnaround following earlier trademark litigation involving Luckin Coffee from 2021 to 2023 that had generated widespread public attention and raised questions about the protection available to legitimate foreign brand owners in Thailand. In a significant subsequent development, Thailand’s Court of Appeal for Specialized Cases has now affirmed the IP&IT Court’s judgment in its entirety. The appellate decision brings clarity to one of Thailand’s most closely watched trademark disputes. Significantly, this is the first case in Thailand to formally recognize the trademark squatting principle. The Court of Appeal confirmed that Luckin Coffee has a better right to the disputed mark and ordered cancellation of the defendants’ trademark registration—a key application of the “better right” doctrine. The court also upheld the substantial damages awarded at first instance, providing important guidance on assessing harm from systematic trademark squatting. Award-Winning Judgment Affirmed in Its Entirety The significance of the first-instance judgment extended beyond the outcome for Luckin Coffee. The IP&IT Court judgment was subsequently recognized in the IP&IT Court’s Distinguished Judgment Awards in 2025, reflecting the complexity, novelty, and legal significance of the issues considered in the case. The defendants nevertheless appealed the judgment, challenging several key aspects of the IP&IT Court’s decision. Luckin Coffee continued to entrust Tilleke & Gibbins as their sole attorney to pursue the case at the appellate level. After considering the defendants’ appeal and Luckin Coffee’s submissions in response, the Court of Appeal affirmed the first-instance judgment in its entirety. The judgment was announced on July 8, 2026. Better Right to the Marks The Court of Appeal confirmed Luckin Coffee’s superior rights. The orders include cancellation
Read More
July 24, 2026
As food innovation continues to accelerate, manufacturers are increasingly introducing ingredients derived from new sources, produced using novel technologies, or lacking a significant history of human consumption. While these innovations create new opportunities for the food industry, they also raise important questions regarding consumer safety. For this reason, many jurisdictions, including Thailand, the European Union, Australia and New Zealand, Canada, and Singapore, require a premarket safety assessment for novel food ingredients before they can be placed on the market. The objective of this assessment is to ensure that each ingredient is safe for its intended use and level of consumption, does not present toxicological, allergenic, microbiological, or nutritional concerns, and will not mislead consumers. Scientific authorities typically evaluate the ingredient’s identity, manufacturing process, composition, specifications, anticipated dietary exposure, toxicological information, nutritional impact, and history of use before determining whether it can be marketed. Against this background, the Thai Food and Drug Administration (FDA) recently took an important step toward improving regulatory transparency by publishing, for the first time, a consolidated public list of substances that have successfully completed the Thai FDA’s safety assessment process, including substances determined to be novel foods and those determined not to fall within the novel food category. The list identifies the approved substances, the corresponding manufacturers or importers, approval dates, and the approved conditions of use. Although the publication does not change the existing legal framework governing novel food approvals, it provides businesses with greater visibility into the Thai FDA’s regulatory precedents and the types of substances that have previously been accepted through the safety assessment process. The full announcement is available on the Thai FDA’s website. As the list is now publicly available, it also provides useful insight into the types of substances that have successfully completed the Thai FDA’s safety assessment process.
Read More
July 24, 2026
Indonesia has updated its fee framework for intellectual property (IP)-related government services, with implications for IP owners, licensees, lenders, digital platforms, and businesses operating in the country. Government Regulation No. 30 of 2026 on Types and Tariffs of Non-Tax State Revenue Applicable to the Ministry of Law (GR 30/2026) was promulgated on July 2, 2026, and will take effect on August 1, 2026. Key Takeaways GR 30/2026, which replaces the relevant IP service fees under Government Regulation No. 45 of 2024, reorganizes the fee schedule into separate categories for copyright, industrial designs, patents, layout designs of integrated circuits, trade secrets, trademarks, geographical indications, IP enforcement, and other categories. The most commercially relevant changes include a new copyright recordation tariff exemption for songs and music, higher fees for several trademark and geographical indication services, new IP enforcement service fees, and a new fee type for registration of fiduciary security over IP rights objects. In addition, this is the first major update for trademark fees in approximately 10 years. GR 30/2026 is significant not only as a fee update but also as a further indication of Indonesia’s increasing recognition of IP as a financeable commercial asset. By expressly assigning fees to the registration of fiduciary security over IP rights objects, the regulation places IP-backed collateral filings within the Ministry of Law’s administrative service framework. While GR 30/2026 does not create a new secured-transactions regime, this development is relevant for lenders, borrowers, and IP owners structuring financing arrangements secured by trademarks, patents, copyrights, industrial designs, or other registrable IP rights in Indonesia. Copyright: New Fee Exemption for Songs and Music Recordation For copyright, GR 30/2026 creates a fee-exempt category for recordation of works or related-rights products for songs or music, while maintaining a separate category for other works and related-rights products. It
Read More