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​ 

July 21, 2026
Thailand’s Ministry of Digital Economy and Society (MDES) published a notification establishing an expedited court-ordered takedown mechanism for online content in cases of “urgent necessity.” The notification, which was issued on July 17, 2026, under the Computer Crime Act B.E. 2550 (2007), as amended, took effect the following day. It significantly expands the categories of content subject to rapid government-initiated removal. Content Categories Subject to Takedown The notification defines “urgent necessity” (section 20, paragraph 5, of the Computer Crime Act) as circumstances where any delay in suppressing computer data may impact national security, religion, the monarchy, good morals, social culture, or public order. In this regard, it establishes four broad categories of content: Computer Crime Act offenses. National security offenses. IP and other criminal offenses, where it is contrary to public order or good morals and a competent officer has requested its suppression. Content contrary to public order or good morals, a broad residual category encompassing 14 subcategories approved by the Computer Data Screening Committee. The fourth category is the most expansive. Its 14 subcategories include: Content defaming, mocking, satirizing, or devaluing the monarchy. Online gambling advertising or facilitation. Offering illegal firearms for sale. Offering baraku (hookah) products or e-cigarettes for sale. Offering cannabis inflorescences or processed cannabis products for sale. Advertising or soliciting prostitution. Content inciting violence, hatred, or social division. Unauthorized overseas employment advertising. Offering boiled kratom juice for sale. Online sale or advertising of alcoholic beverages. Content satirizing or degrading Buddhism. Money lending at interest rates exceeding legally prescribed limits. Advertising or disseminating information about surrogacy services. Forgery of documents, cards, or official documents. Enforcement Procedure In cases of urgent necessity, a competent official assigned by the MDES permanent secretary must file a petition with supporting evidence to the court with jurisdiction, requesting an order to
Read More
July 15, 2026
Ambush marketing refers to a strategy in which a business associates itself with an event, campaign, or brand without paying for official sponsorship rights. The tactic is most visible in sports, concerts, and festivals, where official sponsors have invested substantially for exclusivity. Ambush marketers may use suggestive wording, event-themed imagery, athlete endorsements, venue-adjacent promotions, or social media campaigns implying a commercial connection with the event. Common Forms of Ambush Marketing Ambush marketing typically takes one of the following forms: Direct ambushing: using event names, logos, or mascots suggesting authorization Coattail ambushing: sponsoring an athlete or broadcaster connected with the event Subtle ambushing: themed advertising, venue-adjacent campaigns, or similar visual cues The legal analysis in each case turns on whether the marketing crosses from permissible event-based advertising into infringement, passing off, deception, or wrongful exploitation of goodwill, and the risk assessment is necessarily fact-specific. Thailand has no dedicated ambush marketing statute, so legality depends on execution. A campaign that merely comments on a public event may be permissible, but one that uses protected marks, creates consumer confusion, misrepresents sponsorship status, or makes unsubstantiated claims may trigger liability under various Thai laws, as laid out below. Ambush Marketing and Thailand’s Trademark Act The Trademark Act B.E. 2534 (1991) is the primary tool for addressing campaigns that use registered trademarks, event names, logos, mascots, or confusingly similar signs. The law gives registered trademark owners the exclusive right to use their mark for registered goods, and infringement risk arises when a nonsponsor uses an event mark or a confusingly similar sign in advertising. Even referential or playful use may create liability if it causes public confusion as to sponsorship or commercial connection. The law also preserves passing-off claims for unregistered marks. This matters because event names, taglines, or mascots may not always be
Read More
July 13, 2026
When Decree No. 186/2026/ND-CP (Decree 186) takes effect on July 15, 2026, it will introduce the most significant reform of Vietnam’s administrative IP enforcement framework since Decree 99/2013/ND-CP was issued in 2013. These changes are expected to make administrative enforcement faster, more accessible, and better suited to the realities of modern IP disputes. Below are the principal reforms and their practical implications for rights holders and enforcement practitioners. The End of Notarization and Consular Legalization Among the most welcome procedural changes is the abolition of the notarization and consular legalization requirement for powers of attorney (POA) submitted in administrative enforcement proceedings. Under the previous regime, foreign rights holders were generally required to execute a POA, then have it notarized and consular legalized (if seeking customs recordal). In practice, this process frequently delayed enforcement by four to eight weeks, often long enough for infringing goods to disappear before authorities could intervene. Decree 186 removes this bottleneck, now requiring only an original or certified copy of the POA. If the document is in a foreign language, a Vietnamese translation is sufficient, provided it is certified by a competent authority or confirmed by the authorized Vietnamese IP representative. Consular legalization and notarization are no longer required. For rights holders, the practical impact is substantial. Administrative enforcement files that previously took weeks to prepare can now be completed in a matter of days, allowing much faster responses in time-sensitive matters such as warehouse raids, border interventions, and trade-fair enforcement. The decree also introduces a useful administrative simplification. Where an original POA has already been submitted to the same enforcement authority and remains valid, applicants may rely on a copy of that earlier submission by identifying the previous case file. This eliminates unnecessary duplication for rights holders pursuing multiple enforcement actions before the same
Read More
July 9, 2026
Recycling, upcycling, and refill-packaging models are now widely promoted as ways to reduce waste, lower carbon emissions, and respond to consumer demand for sustainable products. However, complications arise when these environmentally driven trends intersect with intellectual property law—particularly where reused or altered packaging continues to display third parties’ registered trademarks. Adding to this complexity, Thailand’s draft Sustainable Packaging Management Act aims to introduce new environmental compliance obligations that businesses must navigate alongside existing trademark concerns. Recycling and upcycling packaging may infringe trademark rights, especially in cases not protected by the first-sale doctrine—the principle that a trademark owner’s rights over a particular mark-bearing product end once the owner first sells it. Furthermore, even refill packaging carries legal risk due to specific statutory prohibitions under Thai law. Compounding these challenges, the draft Sustainable Packaging Management Act will impose extended producer responsibility (EPR) obligations on manufacturers and brand owners, requiring them to manage packaging throughout its lifecycle. These overlapping legal frameworks could deter manufacturers from pursuing ESG-aligned business models unless businesses understand how to navigate both trademark and environmental requirements. Under Thai law, this issue remains uncertain because the Trademark Act does not expressly codify the first sale doctrine, also known as the exhaustion of trademark rights. Generally, this doctrine provides that once a trademark owner has lawfully sold goods bearing its trademark, the owner’s right to control further resale of those particular goods is exhausted. The rationale is that the owner has already received commercial benefit from the first authorized sale; therefore, the purchaser should be free to resell or otherwise dispose of the goods. Although the doctrine is not expressly codified in the Trademark Act, Thai courts have recognized it in relation to genuine goods and parallel imports, as seen in a Supreme Court Judgment No. 2817/2543 in which the
Read More