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

May 26, 2017

Trademark Opposition Proceedings: Comparing Thailand and the United States

Subscribe to Updates
Bangkok Post, Corporate Counsellor Column

A trademark opposition proceeding is a specialized legal process in which one party challenges another party’s pending trademark application. Opposition proceedings can be useful tools for third parties to protect their trademark rights, and such proceedings are often undertaken when a third party believes that a trademark filed by another party is confusingly similar to its own trademark and will cause confusion to consumers. This article examines the differing approaches to trademark opposition proceedings in Thailand and the United States, and the benefits and drawbacks of each.

Thailand

In Thailand, after a trademark application is filed with the Department of Intellectual Property, the application is reviewed by a Trademark Registrar. If the Registrar approves the trademark for registration, the trademark application is published in the Trademark Gazette. Third parties have 60 days following the publication date to oppose the trademark if they wish to do so.

Opposition proceedings in Thailand are initiated with the Trademark Registrar. The opposer files an opposition petition setting out the reasons why the trademark should not be registered, and the owner of the opposed trademark may submit a counterstatement in response within 60 days of receiving the opposition petition. The Registrar assigned to the case will consider the parties’ submissions and will make a decision within 12 to 18 months.

The United States

Similar to Thailand,  a trademark application in the United States is filed with the United States Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO) and is reviewed by an Examining Attorney. If the application is approved for registration and all other requirements are met, the trademark application is published in the Official Gazette. A third party wishing to oppose a trademark application files a notice of opposition with the administrative tribunal of the USPTO, which is known as the Trademark Trial and Appeal Board (the Board). 

Once a notice of opposition is filed, the Board issues an order with the schedule of the proceedings. The owner of the opposed trademark must then submit an answer to the notice of opposition. Subsequently, the parties engage in a process called “discovery,” in which they request information and documents from each other to support their claims and defenses. The discovery process can include taking depositions of witnesses.

By the time it is ready to make a decision, the Board will often have an extensive legal record to consider, including the notice of opposition submitted by the opposer, the answer filed by the trademark owner, and all the documents, information, and testimony submitted by the parties to support their cases. An oral hearing before the Board is also available upon request.

A decision regarding a trademark opposition in the United States is required to be rendered within 10 to 20 weeks from the date the case is ready for decision. Once the Board makes a decision,  a party may file a request for rehearing, reconsideration, or modification of the decision.

Comparison

Opposition proceedings in Thailand are straightforward, and the process of filing and responding to an opposition is clear. The limited submissions that the parties can make help to keep costs relatively low. On the other hand, the proceedings do not provide opportunities for the parties to try to negotiate a settlement.

By comparison, the proceedings in the United States are complex and involved. The parties must exchange information and documents, so that each has an opportunity to gather evidence to support its claims and defenses. The result of the process is often a robust legal record on which the Board can rely when making its decision. However, the process can also lead to high costs.

One of the key differences between U.S. and Thai proceedings is the ability to suspend the proceedings or extend deadlines in certain circumstances in the United States—an option that is not available in Thailand. For example, in the United States, in the period after publication but before the opposition is filed, the potential opposer may request an extension of the deadline to file the opposition. The extension is often requested by the potential opposer to provide time to contact the trademark owner and try to resolve the dispute without the need to enter into opposition proceedings. It is also often possible to suspend ongoing proceedings if the parties are actively engaged in settlement discussions. 

While opposition proceedings in Thailand could be improved by allowing for more opportunities for parties to gather information from each other and by allowing for extensions of deadlines and suspensions of the proceedings, U.S. opposition proceedings could be enhanced through simplifying and streamlining the process.

Download Full Article
Related Professionals

Practices

Intellectual Property

Location

RELATED INSIGHTS​ 

August 20, 2026
As part of its membership in Lex Mundi, Tilleke & Gibbins has released the latest edition of its Guide to Doing Business in Thailand, providing an overview of the legal, regulatory, and commercial considerations for companies establishing or expanding operations in Thailand. The 2026 edition offers practical insight into the country’s business environment, investment framework, and operational requirements. The guide covers a wide range of topics relevant to foreign and domestic investors, including: Investment incentives and promotion schemes Financial facilities and banking regulations Exchange controls and money transfers Import and export regulations Business structures and incorporation options Requirements for establishing a business Operational and compliance considerations Business cessation and insolvency procedures Employment and labor laws Taxation Immigration and visa requirements Prepared by Tilleke & Gibbins lawyers across multiple practice areas, the publication outlines key aspects of doing business in Thailand, including foreign investment restrictions, regulatory compliance obligations, corporate structures, employment requirements, and recent legal and economic developments affecting investors. The publication forms part of Lex Mundi’s Country Guides series, a global collection of jurisdiction-specific reference materials prepared by member firms around the world. Together, these guides help companies evaluate opportunities, compare regulatory environments, and plan international business activities across multiple markets. The full Guide to Doing Business in Thailand 2026 is available through the button below.
Read More
August 13, 2026
Modern agricultural machinery is no longer purely mechanical but instead technology dependent. Modern tractors, harvesters, and other farm equipment increasingly incorporate embedded software, electronic control units, sensors, and digital diagnostic systems. While such technologies enhance efficiency, productivity, and precision farming, they also affect the manner of equipment repair and maintenance. As a result, farmers and independent repair providers may have little practical choice but to rely on authorized dealers, even for routine maintenance and repairs. Section 36 of Thailand’s Patent Act reflects the principle that the authorized sale of a patented invention usually exhausts the exclusive right of the patent owner over the specific product. This means that upon legal sale of the patented product, it can typically be used or resold without further authorization from the patent holder. This principle is relatively straightforward when applied to traditional mechanical equipment. Ownership of a machine ordinarily carries with it the practical ability to diagnose faults, replace worn parts, and restore the equipment to working order. Modern agricultural machinery, however, increasingly depends on embedded software, proprietary diagnostic systems, firmware updates, and other digital resources that may remain under the control of the manufacturer or patent holder. This tension lies within the “right to repair” debate. In the United States, on July 8, 2026, the Federal Trade Commission and five states announced a settlement with Deere & Company resolving allegations that Deere had unlawfully restricted farmers’ and independent repair providers’ ability to repair their equipment. Under the terms of the settlement, for the next ten years, Deere must provide repair resources, including software capabilities, on terms equivalent to those provided to authorized dealers. The Deere settlement highlights that the nature of ownership is changing, but legal concepts have not kept pace. Traditional patent-law concepts, including patent exhaustion, were developed with physical products
Read More
August 10, 2026
Thailand has finalized its social media KYC (“know your customer”) rules under Notification of the Electronic Transactions Commission on Measures to Prevent Technological Crimes for Social Media Service Providers (No. 2), which was published in the Government Gazette on May 5, 2026, and will take effect on November 1, 2026. While an early draft of the notification proposed requiring social media platforms to arrange identification of every user account, the final notification is significantly more targeted, focusing on paid online advertising and advertiser identity verification. Though the regulatory initiative primarily aims to combat online fraud and technology-related crimes, it also has important consequences for intellectual property enforcement, because the verified platform records that will be generated under the new requirements can help IP rights holders to identify anonymous online infringers. Key Regulatory Mandates The notification requires social media service providers to verify the identity of advertisers before their paid advertisements are published and disseminated in Thailand through social media, regardless of whether the advertising fees come from the advertisers or third parties. Verification of an advertiser is valid for one year, after which verification would have to be performed again before the platform could publish additional paid advertisements from the advertiser. Permitted verification methods are specified under the notification. A platform may verify an advertiser by checking identity evidence and confirming the connection between the advertiser and that identity evidence, with the notification giving facial comparison against certain government-issued identity documents as an example. Alternatively, platforms may verify advertisers through a digital identity verification and authentication system with an identity-proofing assurance level not lower than the level prescribed by Thailand’s Electronic Transactions Commission. The notification further requires platforms to retain only the advertiser’s information necessary to identify the advertiser, beginning from the start of the advertising activity and for
Read More
August 6, 2026
Introduction: A Trademark Paradox in Sustainable Packaging Walk into any Thai supermarket, and the label-free water bottle is no longer a novelty. Thailand’s packaging market, valued at approximately USD 15.68 billion in 2025, is shifting toward minimalist, plastic-light designs as ESG pressures reshape how brands present their products. The country generated roughly 5.68 million tons of plastic waste in 2021, with a recycling rate of only 19 percent, and regulators are now considering rules that would allow label-free bottled water relying on embossing, laser printing, or QR codes instead of wrap-around labels. As packaging itself becomes the brand identifier, a paradox emerges: designs built to say the least often struggle hardest for protection under Thai intellectual property law. The Trademark Barrier: When Shape Is Not Enough Section 7, paragraph 2(10) of the Thai Trademark Act deems a shape distinctive only if it is not the natural form of the goods, is not necessary to achieve a technical result, and does not add value to the goods. The Department of Intellectual Property’s 2022 examination guidelines apply this test conservatively, as the following examples illustrate. A plain water bottle relying on subtle contours to signal its brand is typically read as just another bottle, not a source identifier. Acquired distinctiveness offers a theoretical escape route, but it demands extensive evidence of sales, advertising, and consumer recognition—an especially heavy burden for new entrants whose minimalist packaging has not yet achieved market prominence. The result is a structural bias against precisely the design innovation that sustainability goals are meant to encourage. Design Patents: A Partial, Imperfect Substitute Design patent protection, covering a product’s shape, configuration, or ornamentation, appears to offer an alternative route. In practice, it is constrained by the same forces driving the minimalist trend. Because many brands converge on similar solutions—clear
Read More