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

June 3, 2016

Trademark License Agreements in Thailand: Choice-of-Law Clauses and Registration Requirements

Subscribe to Updates
Informed Counsel

In order to receive royalties, a trademark owner may license out its trademark rights to another party. To license trademark rights, a trademark license agreement must be made in writing and registered at the Department of Intellectual Property (DIP), in accordance with Section 68 of the Thai Trademark Act. If a trademark license agreement is not registered, it will be void, according to Section 152 of the Civil and Commercial Code and the support of various Supreme Court judgments (Decisions 7770/2547, 6436/2543, and 6190/2550). Registration helps disclose the owner and origin of the goods to avoid confusion among the public.

Sometimes the parties to a trademark license agreement will include a choice-of-law clause in the agreement, designating a foreign governing law. This raises a key question: if a choice-of-law clause indicates that a trademark license agreement is governed by foreign law, does it still need to be registered as required under Thai law? The Central Bankruptcy Court recently answered this question in a case involving the largest amount of compensation ever requested in the history of the courts for breach of a trademark license agreement.

Tilleke & Gibbins’ client, a leading manufacturer and supplier of customized fittings and pipes, is a trademark owner in various countries, including Thailand. A former director of our client assigned its trademark to another party, the opposing party in this case. At a later point, the opposing party granted a license to our client, which became the licensee of the trademark. The former director and the opposing party included a choice-of-law clause in the agreement designating English law as the governing law. The parties did not register the license agreement with the DIP.

At a later point, our client underwent reorganization, during which it was alleged that our client had failed to perform its obligations under the trademark license agreement. The opposing party subsequently filed a request for compensation arising out of a breach of the license agreement for THB 6.9 billion, the largest amount of compensation ever requested in the history of the courts for breach of a trademark license agreement.

Among other defenses, our client argued that the trademark license agreement was void under Section 152 of the Civil and Commercial Code, because it was not registered at the DIP in accordance with Section 68 of the Trademark Act. In rebuttal, the opposing party claimed that the choice-of-law clause in the agreement designating English law as the governing law meant that registration under Thai law was not required.

In Thailand, a trademark license agreement is based on the general legal principle of freedom of contract. The parties to a trademark license agreement may essentially agree on any term in the agreement as long as it is not prohibited by law.

In this case, the parties chose a foreign law to govern the trademark license agreement to avoid having to comply with requirements under Thai law. Generally, a dispute regarding a trademark license agreement falls within the jurisdiction of the Intellectual Property and International Trade Court. However, as the dispute in this case was raised while our client was undergoing reorganization, jurisdiction fell within the purview of the Central Bankruptcy Court.

The Central Bankruptcy Court decided that the trademark license agreement was required to be registered in Thailand because the trademarks were registered and protected under Thai law. Because the trademark license agreement was not registered in Thailand, the agreement was void, in accordance with Section 68 of the Trademark Act and Section 152 of the Civil and Commercial Code. Therefore, the opposing party had no right to claim THB 6.9 billion in compensation.

Notably, the Central Bankruptcy Court did not state that the choice-of-law clause was invalid. Instead, the Court clarified that the choice-of-law clause did not serve as an exception to Section 68. Regardless of the choice-of-law clause, the trademark license agreement was still required to be registered with the DIP. Licensors and licensees should be aware of this ruling and ensure that their trademark license agreements are registered in Thailand.

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