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

March 25, 2022

Trade Dress Case Results in Record Damages in Thailand

Subscribe to Updates
Managing Intellectual Property

Trade dress, which refers to the visual appearance of a product and packaging, as well as the product’s placement at its point-of-sale (store layout), was at the center of an infringement case that recently obtained the highest damages award ever given for a trademark case in Thailand.

Trade dress is an important branding consideration because it can create a commercial impression and enable the public to recognize the original source of goods and services, distinct from other traders. Trade dress comes in many different forms, but only a few of them find solid protection in Thailand, and only through creative use of existing intellectual property protections. For instance, a unique packaging design in the form of an unfolded paper box could be eligible for trademark registration. A distinctive product configuration or external design of a container might be eligible for registration as a three-dimensional trademark, or even as a design patent if it features lines or colors giving a special appearance to a novel product that has an industrial application. In addition, a product’s configuration could be subject to copyright protection as a “sculpture work” if it shows a figure with tangible volume.

However, in Thailand, trade dress does not yet receive explicit recognition under the country’s Trademark Law—unlike in some other jurisdictions whose trademark laws permit the registration of trade dress. The protection and enforcement of trade dress in the form of “store layout” in particular has been a constant challenge in Thailand, given the lack of explicit laws and precedence. Consequently, brand owners may have a hard time protecting their trade dress in relation to their creative and unique store layout designs, despite a great deal of effort and financial investment.

But now this appears to be changing: In December 2021, Tilleke & Gibbins successfully secured a precedent judgment on the store layout form of trade dress from the Central Intellectual Property and International Trade Court (IP&IT Court).

Precedent Trade Dress Case for Store Layout

The popular Thai bubble-tea chain Fire Tiger is a successful business of Ruay Sabai Sabai Co., Ltd., a Thailand-based food and beverage company. Fire Tiger is a pioneer in the use of eye-catching trade dress in the industry. For use in all Fire Tiger stores, Ruay Sabai Sabai designed a gold-colored sculpture of a tiger’s head featuring a wide-open mouth as a product-serving channel as part of a store design that resembles a tiger cage. They also developed Fire Tiger’s logos, unique menu designs, and other creative marketing ideas to support their bubble-tea business. These distinctive creations were deployed in Fire Tiger branches and quickly gained consumer recognition and media attention.

Ruay Sabai Sabai operates over 15 Fire Tiger stores in Thailand and has expanded their franchise business in Southeast Asia, with further outlets soon to open in Europe and North America. Fire Tiger’s various marks have been registered in Thailand and overseas, and their tiger-head sculpture has also been recorded with the Copyright Office of the Department of Intellectual Property.

In 2019, Ruay Sabai Sabai became aware of a competing chain of bubble-tea stores using a similar trade name and trademark containing the word “fire” plus the name of another animal. Moreover, the competitor’s stores were using a similar gold-colored sculpture of an animal head with an open mouth in a golden cage for their product-serving channel, and the menu designs and marketing ideas also showed similarities to those of Fire Tiger. The competitor expanded rapidly, amassing over 200 franchise licensees throughout Thailand within a short period. Ruay Sabai Sabai’s attempts to contact the competitor to resolve the dispute amicably all went ignored, so in view of the damage they sustained, Ruay Sabai Sabai filed a civil lawsuit against the competitor with the IP&IT Court on November 30, 2020.

The litigation process took just over a year, and on December 23, 2021, the IP&IT Court announced its judgment, concluding that the competitor’s use of the word “fire” along with an animal name as its store name and in naming its bubble-tea products (in Thai and English languages), beverage cups bearing an animal head in the same position as on Fire Tiger’s cups, and an animal-head sculpture with an open mouth as a serving channel could cause the general public to understand that the competitor’s bubble-tea stores originated from Fire Tiger, or that the competing bubble-tea products are derived from the same source.

Since the competitor was the same type of business as Fire Tiger, the court believed that the actions noted above would deceive the public into believing that the competitor’s goods or business, including the franchise businesses, are associated with Fire Tiger. This constitutes infringement as passing off under the Trademark Act, and the court agreed that the infringement caused damage to Ruay Sabai Sabai.

The IP&IT Court awarded damages of THB 10 million (approximately USD 303,000) with interest to Ruay Sabai Sabai, together with monthly damages of THB 100,000 (approximately USD 3,030) from the filing date of the complaint until the competitor ceases its passing-off actions. The amounts awarded by the IP&IT Court in this case are the highest handed down for a trademark case in Thailand.

Protection of New Types of IP in Thailand

The judgment in the Fire Tiger case confirms that trade dress in the form of store layout can be protected in Thailand. Even in the absence of explicit legislation in the Thai Trademark Act governing trade dress protections in Thailand, the IP&IT Court recognizes the efforts and financial investment of IP owners and is open to interpreting the law in concurrence with international standards by making use of the existing laws offering protection to brand owners. It is hoped that this case will act as a precedent in many more cases, giving IP owners more comprehensive protection over their creative output and investment in their IP assets.

This article first appeared in Managing Intellectual Property.

Related Professionals

Practices

Intellectual Property

Location

RELATED INSIGHTS​ 

September 7, 2026
Indonesia’s Constitutional Court (Mahkamah Konstitusi) has reinstated a key provision limiting pharmaceutical patent protection, signaling a renewed commitment to balancing patent rights with public access to medicines. In its ruling to Case No. 255/PUU-XXIII/2025, the court partially granted a petition for judicial review of Law No. 65 of 2024, which had amended the country’s Patent Law, and ordered the restoration of a provision that had excluded certain pharmaceutical inventions from patentability. The decision took effect immediately upon its pronouncement at the court’s plenary session on August 28, 2026. Background The petition challenged the removal of article 4(f) from Law No. 13 of 2016 concerning Patents (Patent Law), as amended by Law No. 65 of 2024. Article 4(f) had excluded from patentability certain inventions relating to new uses of known substances. The petitioners argued that removing this provision would open the door to patent protection for second medical use inventions and facilitate patent evergreening—practices that can extend exclusivity periods, delay generic market entry, and reduce public access to affordable medicines. The petitioners included several patient advocacy and public-interest organizations: the Indonesian Dialysis Patients Community Association, the Indonesian Association of Drug Abuse Victims (PKNI), the Indonesian Pulmonary Hypertension Foundation (YHPI), the Rekat Peduli Indonesia Foundation, and the Indonesian Positive Women’s Association (IPPI), along with the Indonesia for Global Justice Association and four individual petitioners. The petitioners also challenged the constitutionality of the phrase “interested party” in article 70(1) of the Patent Law, arguing that it should be construed expressly to clarify who has standing to appeal a decision to grant a patent before the Board of Patent Appeal, and to allow a broader range of parties—such as patent holders, licensees, consumer organizations, prosecutors, aggrieved third parties, and others who may suffer direct or indirect harm from the grant of a patent—to
Read More
September 2, 2026
Thailand and China have a longstanding and significant trade relationship, which increasingly extends to e-commerce and digitally enabled supply chains. While these channels create new opportunities for businesses to reach consumers across borders, their growth also brings greater exposure to intellectual property (IP) infringement across jurisdictions and online platforms. Effective cooperation between the two countries’ enforcement authorities has therefore become increasingly important. To strengthen cooperation in this area, Thailand and China signed a memorandum of understanding (MOU) on IP enforcement in Beijing on July 20, 2026, during the Thai prime minister’s official visit to China. Officially titled “Memorandum of Understanding Between the State Administration for Market Regulation of the People’s Republic of China and the Ministry of Commerce of the Kingdom of Thailand on Cooperation in the Field of Intellectual Property Enforcement,” the MOU forms part of a broader bilateral agenda covering industrial and supply chains, participation by micro, small, and medium-sized enterprises (MSMEs), cooperation associated with the ASEAN–China Free Trade Area 3.0, and progress on the registration of Thai geographical indications in China. The MOU establishes a bilateral framework for cooperation and coordination in five broad areas: Strengthening dialogue in IP enforcement; Enhancing information sharing; Facilitating the enforcement of IP rights in cases arising in the parties’ domestic markets and on online platforms, in accordance with their respective domestic laws; Promoting cooperation in IP enforcement training and human resource development; and Undertaking other cooperation activities agreed upon by both sides. The Department of Intellectual Property (DIP) will serve as the principal coordinating agency for Thailand, while the Bureau of Law Enforcement and Inspection in China’s State Administration for Market Regulation (SAMR) will serve in that role for China. The framework is particularly relevant to the growth of e-commerce, as it covers infringement in the domestic markets and on
Read More
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