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

November 25, 2024

The Inherent Distinctiveness of Two-Letter Marks Under Thai Trademark Practice

Subscribe to Updates
World Trademark Review

Trademark registration for marks composed of combinations of Roman letters and/or Arabic numerals has long been challenging in Thailand, particularly for those that are neither stylised nor pronounceable. There have been conflicting perspectives regarding the interpretation of “invented letter(s) and numeral(s)” under Section 7 of the Thai Trademark Act. The Department of Intellectual Property (DIP) has considered that letters and numerals must feature notable visual enhancements to be inherently distinctive, and “invented” must be in the form of stylisation, such as overlapping or interlocking letters, or intricate designs like traditional Thai oral patterns or geometric motifs.

Some examples of acceptable letter and numeral marks according to the DIP

The courts, however, have consistently recognised that three-letter marks, even when presented without stylisation, can be inherently distinctive. The rationale is that these marks, viewed as random and unusual combinations, can in many cases be distinguishable from common words and sufficient for the public to identify the associated goods/services, and distinguish them from others.

Following Supreme Court precedents on registrability, the DIP officially updated its Examination Guidelines in January 2022 to recognise that combinations of three or more letters, even if not stylised or forming pronounceable words, can be deemed inherently distinctive. Challenges persist, however, for two-letter marks, which still face significant obstacles in achieving registrability.

The JD case

Background

Beijing Jing Dong 360 Du E-Commerce, one of China’s largest e-commerce companies, led trademark applications for the marks JD.COM (and device) and JD.CO.TH (and device) for services in Class 35 related to advertising and business management:

The registrar rejected the applications, citing insufficient stylisation of ‘JD’ and describing ‘.com’ and ‘.co.th’ as common descriptive terms. The applicant appealed to the Board of Trademarks, which upheld the refusal, echoing the registrar’s reasoning and asserting that the marks were devoid of inherent distinctiveness overall.

Undeterred by the initial rejections, the applicant took a bold step and led a civil suit challenging both decisions, firmly arguing that ‘JD’ was an arbitrary combination of letters deriving from the applicant’s company name and that ‘.com’ and ‘.co.th’ were not descriptive of the services in Class 35. Thus, the marks were inherently distinctive.

IP & IT Court decision

This time, the Intellectual Property and International Trade Court (IP & IT Court) ruled in favour of the applicant, finding that although ‘JD’ consisted of ordinary Roman letters, these were derived from the applicant’s corporate name (Beijing Jing Dong 360 Du E-Commerce) and combined in an unordinary manner, making them distinctive under Section 7 of the Trademark Act. The IP & IT Court also acknowledged that there was no prohibition against registering common terms such as ‘.com’ as trademarks, provided that they distinguished the services. The IP & IT Court determined that, when combined with ‘.com’ or ‘.co.th’, ‘JD’ was distinctive and eligible for registration.

Appeal court decision

The DIP, as the defendant, appealed the decision to the Court of Appeal for Specialised Cases, arguing that examination by dissection was legitimate and that the mark was devoid of inherent distinctiveness, because ‘JD’ lacked distinctiveness and ‘.com’ and ‘.co.th’ were common descriptive terms. On 9 January 2022 the Court of Appeal upheld the IP & IT Court’s decision, stating as follows:

‘Invented’ letters refer to arranging letters in an unusual manner not typically used so that the public can distinguish

“the services associated with the mark from others. It does NOT mean that each letter is designed with special characteristics, nor with creative arrangements… In the case of the applicant’s marks, the Roman letters ‘J’ and ‘D’ are placed together on a single plane without translation or specific meaning, and there is no evidence that such an arrangement of letters is commonly used. Therefore, ‘JD’ is considered an invented arrangement of letters and has its own distinctiveness according to the Trademark Act.”

Supreme Court decision

On 8 August 2024 the Supreme Court rejected the DIP’s motion for a final appeal, making the decision of the Court of Appeal final and confirming the registrability of the two JD marks.

Comment

This case, and in particular the court’s recognition that ‘JD’ constituted a distinctive invented arrangement of letters, highlights the positive evolution of legal standards for the registrability of two-letter marks in Thailand. This case reveals to future applicants that two-letter marks might indeed be registrable with a well-constructed case and if distinctiveness as a whole is demonstrated.

Source: IP & IT Court’s Back Case No IP 79/2564 (Red Case No IP 137/2565)

 

This article first appeared in WTR Daily, part of World Trademark Review, in October 2025. For further information, please go to www.worldtrademarkreview.com.

Related Professionals

Practices

Intellectual Property

Location

RELATED INSIGHTS​ 

July 30, 2025
Artificial intelligence (AI) model training and data scraping are essential processes in the development of modern AI systems. AI model training involves using large datasets to teach machine learning algorithms to recognize patterns, make predictions, or generate new content. Data scraping refers to the automated extraction of information from websites or digital sources, often to assemble the vast datasets required for effective AI training. As these practices become more widespread, questions about the legality of using third-party content—especially copyrighted works—have become increasingly important. In Thailand, the legal landscape for AI developers is shaped primarily by the Copyright Act, which presents unique challenges due to the absence of a fair-use exception. This article examines the copyright-related risks and legal uncertainties facing AI developers under Thailand’s current copyright law and practices, offering strategic guidance for navigating this complex environment. Copyright Risks in AI Scraping and Training Thailand’s Copyright Act does not provide a broad fair use or fair dealing exception, unlike some other jurisdictions, such as the United States. This absence has significant consequences for AI developers: No general defense for AI training: Any use of copyrighted material for AI model training is presumed to be infringing unless a specific, narrow statutory exception applies or explicit permission is obtained from the rights holder. There is no general legal basis for using copyrighted works in AI training without authorization. Increased rights clearance burden: Developers must identify and secure licenses for every copyrighted work included in their training datasets. Given the scale and diversity of data required for effective AI models, this process can be both impractical and costly. Legal ambiguity and litigation risk: The lack of clear statutory guidance or case law leaves developers in a legal gray area. There is no established precedent clarifying whether certain uses of copyrighted material for
Read More
July 25, 2025
Over the first half of 2025, the government of Vietnam has implemented a comprehensive suite of legislative reforms that significantly impact the country’s intellectual property (IP) framework. These amendments, most of which took effect on 1 July 2025, span the criminal, civil, administrative, and judicial sectors, and are part of a broader initiative to modernize Vietnam’s legal infrastructure, strengthen enforcement mechanisms, and harmonize domestic regulations with international standards. A summary of the key legislative changes and their potential implications for IP protection and enforcement across Vietnam is provided below. Criminal Code: Stricter penalties Under the 2025 amendments to Vietnam’s Criminal Code, penalties for offenses involving the manufacturing and trading of counterfeit goods have been significantly escalated. Individuals convicted of such violations now face fines ranging from VND 200 million to VND 2 billion (approximately USD 7,700 to USD 77,000; up from VND 100 million to VND 1 billion). For corporate entities, the penalties are even more severe, with fines ranging from VND 2 billion to VND 40 billion (roughly USD 77,000 to USD 1.54 million; up from VND 1 billion to VND 20 billion). These heightened penalties reflect the government’s intensified efforts to deter counterfeit-related crimes and protect consumer rights. Law on Handling Administrative Violations: Extended statute of limitations and application of electronic procedure The statute of limitations for addressing administrative violations in the IP sector is still two years. However, in cases where such violations are referred by procedural authorities, this period is extended by one year. The time taken by these authorities to process the case is now included within the overall limitation period. In addition, the Law on Handling Administrative Violations facilitates the use of electronic procedures, provided that the necessary infrastructure, technical systems, and information conditions are in place. Specifically, enforcement authorities are now permitted
Read More
July 21, 2025
Distinctiveness is a fundamental requirement for a trademark’s registration and protection under Thai law. The Thai courts typically assess distinctiveness based on a mark’s inherent characteristics rather than its use, as proving acquired distinctiveness through use requires substantial evidence, including the duration of use, extent of distribution and promotional efforts. However, the Intellectual Property and International Trade Court (IP & IT Court) has recently ruled that the figurative mark WEPLAY had acquired distinctiveness through use – an uncommon ruling under Thai trademark law. Subsequently, the Court of Appeal for Specialised Cases affirmed the mark’s inherent distinctiveness based on a holistic assessment of its components. This article discusses the criteria for proving both inherent and acquired distinctiveness, offering examples from both courts to provide valuable insights into case preparation and understanding of how the courts assess distinctiveness. Background In 2017 the plaintiff filed a trademark application for the mark depicted below for goods in Class 28, including toy building blocks: The registrar rejected the application on the grounds of non-distinctiveness under Section 7 of the Trademark Act. The plaintiff appealed to the Board of Trademarks, which considered that, when the term ‘weplay’ is used for goods in Class 28, it is descriptive of the nature of the goods applied for as “playthings”. Therefore, ‘weplay’ was deemed nondistinctive under Section 7, Paragraph 2(2) of the Trademark Act. IP & IT Court decision In 2024 the IP & IT Court ruled that the term ‘weplay’ is not a coined or invented word; instead, it is a combination of ‘we’ and ‘play’, conveying the meaning of ‘we play’. When the term is used for goods in Class 28, it describes the nature of the goods as “playthings”. Consequently, the mark was deemed non-distinctive. However, the court considered the evidence presented by the plaintiff,
Read More
July 14, 2025
Life sciences specialists from Tilleke & Gibbins have updated the firm’s guide to pharmaceutical data exclusivity regulations and practices in Southeast Asia. This guide contains quick-reference information on the availability of data exclusivity protections and limitations in Cambodia, Indonesia, Laos, Malaysia, Myanmar, Thailand, and Vietnam. Developing and launching a new drug on a commercial scale requires an enormous amount of time and investment in research and development (R&D), including pre-clinical testing and clinical trials. When considering the aggregate amount of drug development costs, it is important to recognize that this includes not only the investment in developing new drugs that get approved by a government food and drug regulator and are successfully brought to market, but also the R&D expenditures on a large number of potential pharmaceutical compounds and products that never actually make it to market. In particular, considerable investment is required in order to conduct and produce clinical trial data—to prove safety, efficacy and effectiveness of a new drug—that would warrant marketing approval by the regulatory authority. Such data is proprietary in nature and highly valuable for a research-based pharmaceutical company that develops an original drug. On the other hand, patent law typically confers generic drug manufacturers with the ability to engage in various preparatory activities with a view to obtaining marketing approval for a generic product before the patent for the original drug expires (commonly known as a “Bolar provision”). Since a generic drug maker may submit an application for marketing approval of a generic product before the relevant patent expires, the extent to which the drug originator’s data submitted to the regulatory authority is protected—or in other words, the extent to which the generic company may rely on the drug originator’s previously filed data, which underpins the safety and efficacy of the drug, to support
Read More