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 15, 2011

Trademark Law Handbook 2011: Similarity of Marks (Thailand)

Subscribe to Updates
International Trademark Association

In Arcor S.A.I.C. v. Department of Intellectual Property (Arcor), the Thai Supreme (Dika) Court affirmed the Intellectual Property and International Trade Court (IP&IT Court)’s ruling and withdrew the earlier decisions of the Trademark Registrar and the Board of Trademarks.

In 2004, Arcor filed an application for the trademark ROCKLETS THE COLORS OF CHOCOLATE & Device for the goods chocolate, candy, and sweets in Class 30. The Trademark Registrar rejected the trademark application on the basis that this mark was confusingly similar to the prior-registered trademark LOCKETS. Arcor filed an appeal with the Board of Trademarks, but the Board upheld the Registrar’s decision. The Board reasoned that although the applied-for mark contained the phrase “The colors of chocolate,” this phrase was disclaimed and thus was not a material part of the mark. Additionally, the pronunciation of the applied-for mark and the prior-registered trademark were similar and the evidence of use submitted by Arcor was insufficient to prove that the mark had been widely distributed in Thailand. Therefore, the mark was not acceptable for registration.

In an attempt to overcome the decisions by the Registrar and the Board, Arcor filed a complaint against Thailand’s Department of Intellectual Property (DIP) with the IP&IT Court. In the complaint, Arcor contended that the decisions of the Registrar and the Board were incorrect and unlawful because its trademark was not similar to the prior-registered trademark. Furthermore, Arcor had used the mark in good faith for a substantial period of time to the extent that it had gained wide recognition, and thus it deserved to be registered under Section 27 of the Thai Trademark Act. Arcor therefore requested that the IP&IT Court order that its trademark application be considered registrable and that the decisions of the Registrar and the Board be revoked.

In response, the DIP made the following arguments:

  • The decisions of the Registrar and the Board were made in good faith under the law. As such, the decisions were correct and lawful.
  • The Registrar instructed Arcor to disclaim the phrase “The colors of chocolate” and the image of the candies, and Arcor complied with this request. Based on this disclaimer, the applied-for trademark was similar to the prior-registered trademark LOCKETS. This similarity could cause public confusion as to the origin of the goods.
  • Arcor’s evidence of the sale of products in Thailand in 2005 was not sufficient to demonstrate that Arcor’s trademark had been widely advertised or used.

After weighing the arguments presented, the IP&IT Court found that the applied-for mark was not similar to the prior-registered trademark. The IP&IT Court ordered the revocation of the decisions of the Registrar and the Board.

Dissatisfied with this decision, the DIP filed an appeal with the Dika Court. In rendering a judgment, the Dika Court first considered whether the applied-for mark was confusingly similar to the prior-registered trademark. The Dika Court held that the overall appearance of the applied-for mark was different from the prior-registered trademark. The Dika Court further ruled that Arcor’s disclaimer of the phrase “The colors of chocolate” and the picture of candies did not mean that the wording and image should be excluded from consideration when viewing the trademark. This undermined the DIP’s argument that, after the disclaimer, the word “ROCKLETS” was the only important element in the mark.

Although both parties’ marks were used in the same class, the Dika Court ruled that the marks were sufficiently different so as not to cause public confusion as to the origin of the goods. The Dika Court therefore upheld the judgment of the IP&IT Court and dismissed the DIP’s appeal.

This was a noteworthy decision because the Thai Dika Court confirmed that, when considering the similarity of two marks, the disclaimed element of a mark should be regarded as a substantial part of the mark and must be included in the comparison.

Download Full Article
Related Professionals

Practices

Intellectual Property

Location

RELATED INSIGHTS​ 

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
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