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

April 9, 2018

Thailand: Supreme Court Clarifies Criteria for Application of “Honest Concurrent Use”

Subscribe to Updates
World Trademark Review

Jaspal Co Ltd, a company renowned in Thailand, manufactures and retails popular ready-to-wear fashion lines under the trademark JASPAL and other well-recognised house brands.

The company recently launched a product line under its new “white bird” device mark and applied to register the trademark. However, the application was rejected by the Thai Trademark Office due to its similarity to a previously registered “black bird” trademark. Jaspal appealed the decision to the Supreme Court, where it was successful in registering the “white bird” mark on the grounds of honest concurrent use.

Legal Basis

Thailand applies the “first to file” principle, meaning that an application for a mark that is similar to a previously filed trademark cannot be registered. However, the law does allow an applicant for a later similar trademark to prove its good faith or special circumstances by submitting evidence of honest concurrent use of both the trademark applied for and the registered (or pending) trademark. This principle is set forth in Section 27 of the Thai Trademark Act:

“ …if the registrar is of the opinion that there has been honest concurrent use or special circumstances, which make it proper to do so, the registrar may allow registration by more than one owner of a trademark, which is identical with, or similar to, a registered trademark…”

The Court’s View

The Supreme Court agreed with the Trademark Office that the parties’ bird devices were closely similar, because the postures of the birds were depicted in the same manner. The difference in color—one was black while the other was white—could not diminish the likelihood of confusion. However, the Supreme Court overruled the Trademark Office’s decision on the grounds of honest concurrent use of the trademarks.

In exercising its discretion to consider the principle of “honest concurrent use,” the Supreme Court found that there was no likelihood of confusion in this specific case. The Supreme Court took all the relevant evidence into account when exercising its discretion, based on the following well-established criteria:

  • Background of Jaspal’s business and trademark—given the long history of Jaspal’s business, and the use of various house marks as tools for expanding its businesses in Thailand, the new “white bird” trademark was found to be a newly launched tool to promote Jaspal’s products which fell under the larger umbrella of trademarks used by Jaspal since 2004. A thorough and detailed explanation was given as to how the “white bird” device was created and how it was positioned in Jaspal’s marketing plans.
  • Scale of use of Jaspal’s trademark—extensive advertisement for the “white bird” device in famous department stores and other publishing media, costing more than THB 1 billion, in 2006, plus the annual growth of Jaspal’s apparel business in Thailand, represented very convincing evidence for the court.
  • Recognition of Jaspal’s business—the court considered that Jaspal was a leader in the apparel industry in Thailand, with brands and products that are popular among Thai consumers. More importantly, due to the fame of the company, there was no likelihood of confusion stemming from the resemblance of the trademarks, and no proof that confusion existed among consumers had been presented to the court.

For these reasons, the court found that Jaspal’s “white bird” trademark had existed and been in use at the same time as the prior registered “black bird” trademark. All the evidence pointed to Jaspal’s honest intentions in using the trademark to expand its business, without seeking to benefit from the fame of the registered “black bird” trademark.

Given Jaspal’s honesty, the Supreme Court concluded that, despite the similarity of the parties’ trademarks, Jaspal’s trademark could be registered under Section 27 of the Trademark Act.

Download Full Article
Related Professionals

Practices

Intellectual Property

Location

RELATED INSIGHTS​ 

June 24, 2026
Patent enablement requirements are provided under Article 102 of Vietnam’s Law on Intellectual Property (IP Law). In particular, a patent specification must “fully and clearly disclose the nature of the invention to such an extent that, based on the specification, a person having ordinary skill in the relevant art can implement the invention.” In pharmaceutical and biotechnology patents, this requirement is more complicated and subject to more rigorous assessment. The Patent Examination Guidelines (Guidelines) of the Intellectual Property Office of Vietnam (IP Office) were amended in March 2026 to introduce Annexes III and IV for the pharmaceutical and biotechnology sectors, in which Annex III provides detailed guidelines on the assessment of specification requirements. These amendments were made under a project for strengthening capacity in industrial property examination between the Japan International Cooperation Agency (JICA) and the IP Office. Annex III provides detailed instructions on how examiners assess enablement in a pharmaceutical or biotechnology application, and offers examples of acceptable and unacceptable descriptions with regard to the enablement aspect. Enablement Requirements in Pharma and Biotech Patents Article 12.7 of Circular 10/2026/TT-BKHCN (Circular 10) adds to the requirements of Article 102 of the IP Law that the description must demonstrate the novelty, inventive step, and industrial applicability of the technical solution. For pharmaceutical composition subject matters, Article 12.9 of Circular 10 sets out that the description must present the results of clinical trials and/or the pharmacological effects of the claimed pharmaceutical composition, and must include at least the following information: Substance/mixture used. Testing method (system) employed. Information on the test results. Correlation between the pharmacological effects obtained from the tests and the application of the pharmaceutical product in the prevention, diagnosis, and treatment of diseases. The Guidelines note that pharmacological study results should be presented in a quantified manner, and pharmacological
Read More
June 16, 2026
Since the implementation of the Trademark Law 2019 on April 1, 2023, Myanmar has operated under a modern first-to-file trademark system that brings its registration framework closer to international practice. As the new regime continues to develop in practice, applicants are increasingly required to navigate formal examination requirements, substantive objections, and procedural deadlines with greater precision. This article provides a high-level review of the trademark examination process in Myanmar, focusing on the principal stages from initial review to approval, the types of objections commonly raised by the Intellectual Property Department (IPD), and the key considerations for responding effectively. A clear understanding of these issues is essential for applicants seeking to secure registration efficiently and to mitigate avoidable delays or refusals. Examination Process: Key Stages Trademark applications filed with the IPD undergo two stages of review. Formality Examination The IPD first verifies compliance with procedural requirements, including: Correct Nice Classification Clear mark representation Accurate applicant details Clearly defined goods or services Representative details, if the application is filed by a representative Other formality requirements cover translation and transliteration of any non-English or non-Myanmar elements in the mark, color claim details, applicable disclaimers, and payment of official fees. Deficiencies result in an office action requiring correction within 30 days, which may be extended upon request. Registrability Examination The IPD also assesses registrability. A mark may be refused if it: Lacks distinctiveness Is descriptive or generic Misleads the public or violates public order/morality Contains prohibited state symbols Only compliant applications proceed to publication. Responding to Office Actions Applicants must respond within 30 days of notification from the IPD. Depending on the nature of the objection, strategies may include submitting legal arguments for distinctiveness, providing evidence of acquired distinctiveness, filing appropriate disclaimers, clarifying descriptions such as color claims, or amending the listed goods
Read More
June 15, 2026
The surge in AI development has led to a desperate demand for large, high-quality training data. However, real-world data can be expensive to collect, difficult to access, and often subject to strict privacy and regulatory constraints. Synthetic data, which consists of artificially generated records that replicate the statistical properties of real-world data without reproducing specific individuals’ information, provides an appealing solution by generating artificial datasets at scale without relying on identifiable personal information. It combines speed, cost efficiency, and regulatory compliance, making it a sensible alternative for organizations seeking to reduce risks while maintaining data utility. When properly anonymized, synthetic datasets may fall outside the scope of laws such as the EU’s General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR) or Thailand’s Personal Data Protection Act (PDPA), reducing compliance burdens while still supporting high-quality model training. However, relying on synthetic data without rigorous legal due diligence could be a strategic mistake. It replaces one set of known risks (scraping, direct privacy liability) with a new set of complex liabilities. The narrative that synthetic data is a “silver bullet” for privacy and IP compliance is dangerous and could be misleading. While synthetic data addresses data scarcity, it also introduces new legal uncertainties. Legal counsel should anticipate downstream risks arising from compromised data sources. Models trained on unlawfully obtained data may need to be decommissioned, even if their outputs appear lawful. What is synthetic data? Synthetic data refers to artificially generated information created using AI techniques such as deep learning and generative models. Instead of copying real records, it reproduces the statistical patterns and relationships found in the original dataset. Synthetic data generally falls into three categories: Fully synthetic data – Entirely new data points generated from learned patterns. The model studies the structure of the original data and produces records that resemble real-world
Read More
June 10, 2026
In March 2026, the Intellectual Property Office of Vietnam (IP Office) issued a decision refusing a trademark application after considering an opposition based primarily on copyright grounds. The outcome is noteworthy because the foreign brand owner had neither trademark registrations nor applications in Vietnam at the time the opposition was filed, and the IP Office has historically applied a stringent approach to oppositions relying on copyright. The Opposition Maurten is a well-known Swedish sports nutrition brand recognized globally for its innovative hydrogel technology, which is designed to help endurance athletes fuel more effectively without gastrointestinal discomfort. The brand’s distinctive logo is characterized by clean lines and a bold black-and-white color scheme, and has long been associated with the company’s performance products. The brand’s logo is displayed above. An identical mark was filed for registration by a Vietnamese trademark squatter. In 2023, a Vietnamese individual filed an application for registration of an identical mark (Application No. 4-2023-38668), a practice commonly observed in Vietnam as trademark squatting. The brand owner engaged Tilleke & Gibbins to assist with strategy and filing an opposition to the mark. At the time, Maurten had no trademark rights or meaningful use in Vietnam, and global marketing data showed only modest figures without any local presence. Thus, to convince the IP Office to refuse the squatter’s application, instead of relying on trademark rights or use evidence, the opposition strategy centered on the copyright protection of the logo itself, as copyright arises automatically in Vietnam upon creation of the work and does not require registration. (It is worth noting, however, that the IP Office has traditionally been cautious in accepting copyright as a basis for refusing trademark applications.) On September 24, 2024, an opposition was filed on three main grounds: confusing similarity, copyright infringement of the artistic work,
Read More