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​ 

September 30, 2026
Packaging is a valuable commercial asset that helps consumers identify and distinguish products through their shape, colors, graphics, labels, and overall presentation. Obtaining legal protections for these assets is thus an important step. Businesses entering into or operating in the Myanmar market should assess whether trademark protection, industrial design protection, or both provide the strongest IP strategy for these features. The country’s Intellectual Property Department (IPD) under the Ministry of Commerce now administers trademark and industrial design registrations since Myanmar’s modernization of its intellectual property framework through the enactment of four key IP laws in 2019. Trademark Protection for Packaging Under the Trademark Law 2019, a “mark” is any visually perceptible sign, including words, names, letters, numerals, figurative elements, color combinations, or combinations of these signs, capable of distinguishing one undertaking’s goods or services from another’s. Trademark protection may therefore extend to certain elements of product packaging that function as source identifiers. Depending on their presentation and distinctiveness, packaging elements such as brand names, logos, labels, configurations, color combinations, and three-dimensional (3D) shapes may qualify for trademark protection. However, under the current practice of the IPD and its available examination guidelines, the packaging and  trade dress (including product get-up) are not expressly recognized as separate registrable subject matter in Myanmar. Under the Trademark Law 2019, trademark infringement—including unauthorized use of a registered mark on packaging—may give rise to civil remedies, including injunctions and damages, as well as criminal penalties. A 3D mark may protect packaging shape or configuration if it has acquired distinctiveness through use and consumers associate it with the relevant products. However, a shape dictated by a functional or technical purpose is ineligible for registration. Registration of a 3D mark may be renewed indefinitely for successive ten-year periods, subject to compliance with renewal requirements. Industrial Design Protection
Read More
September 30, 2026
Under Thailand’s Patent Act B.E. 2522 (1979), any person may raise the invalidity of a patent as a matter of defense. However, the right to initiate court proceedings to cancel a patent is reserved exclusively for an “interested person” or the public prosecutor. This distinction between merely challenging validity and initiating judicial revocation proceedings has given rise to a significant body of Supreme Court (Dika) jurisprudence interpreting who qualifies as an “interested person” under the Patent Act. Statutory Framework Section 54 of the Patent Act provides that any invention patent granted not in compliance with the patentability requirements will be invalid, and that a petition to cancel such a patent may be submitted to the court by any “interested person” or the public prosecutor. Section 64 mirrors this provision for design patents, and section 65 novies extends the same framework to petty patents. However, none of these provisions defines the term “interested person,” leaving its interpretation to the courts. Supreme Court Interpretation The Thai Supreme Court has developed a consistent body of case law establishing that an “interested person” must be someone directly affected by the existence of the patent—not simply any member of the public. In 1989, the court found (Dika No. 2670/2532) that a party whose intended use of the patented technology was still in a preparatory stage—before actual manufacturing had commenced—did not qualify as an interested person. However, in 2009 the Supreme Court further elaborated  (Dika No. 2906/2552) that an interested party is one whose rights to utilize the invention are restricted by virtue of the patent, such as a manufacturer or producer whose operations are directly impacted by the patentee’s exclusive rights. In the 2008 case of T.M. Grating Steel Co., Ltd. v. Billion Mass Industry Co., Ltd. (Dika No. 974/2551), where the plaintiff had
Read More
September 24, 2026
Vietnam is implementing and developing a broad package of regulatory reforms that could reshape how IP, data, digital platforms, and product authenticity are regulated and enforced. Several of the key measures have been led by the Ministry of Public Security in its legislative and administrative capacity, as part of a broader government effort. The core reform package consists of four key legal instruments: proposed amendments to the Criminal Code, a proposed new Data Security Law, a draft Decree on Product Identification, Authentication and Traceability, and the newly enacted Decree No. 330/2026/ND-CP. These instruments include rules on criminal enforcement, data security, electronic identification, product identification and traceability, administrative violations, and cybersecurity sanctions. Combined, these measures will affect copyright enforcement, industrial property rights, trade secrets, AI training data, product provenance, online takedowns, valuation of counterfeit goods and electronic evidence. It is worth noting that, in addition to strengthening criminal penalties for IP crimes, Vietnam’s emerging regulatory framework increasingly treats infringement, data misuse, product authentication, and platform-enabled violations as interconnected regulatory and enforcement challenges. For rights holders and foreign investors, this could mean stronger tools against counterfeiting and online infringement, but also more compliance obligations around data, traceability, AI, platform controls and government-facing reporting. Expansion of Criminal IP Enforcement Proposed amendments to Article 225 of the Criminal Code would expand criminal copyright exposure beyond reproduction and distribution to cover large-scale commercial public performance and online communication of works, phonograms and video recordings. This is important because piracy is increasingly about streaming, unauthorized communication, and platform access models rather than physical copying. Aggravated copyright infringement could be subject to up to 10 years in prison for individuals and fines of up to VND 6 billion (about USD 228,300) for commercial legal entities. The amended Article 226 would expand criminal industrial property liability beyond
Read More
September 21, 2026
Thailand’s first-to-file trademark system has a serious vulnerability: it lacks both an explicit mechanism for refusing bad-faith registrations and any means of invalidating them in court after the five-year limitation period has expired. While brand owners worldwide confront trademark squatting, Thailand’s statutory silence stands out, particularly in light of AIPPI’s 2017 Resolution Q249, which recommended that every jurisdiction provide clear tools to address bad faith at all stages of the trademark lifecycle. Nearly a decade later, Thailand has yet to act. This article proposes a concrete reform blueprint, drawing on the legislative models of China, the United Kingdom, and the European Union. The Statutory Gap Under the Thai Trademark Act B.E. 2534, no provision expressly authorizes examiners to reject an application on grounds of bad faith. Section 8(10) addresses well-known marks but offers no relief where the targeted mark lacks well-known status. Practitioners have resorted to Section 8(9)—which bars marks “contrary to public order, morality, or public policy”—as a workaround. However, this provision was designed to address the characteristics of the mark itself, not the applicant’s intent. Thai Supreme Court decisions have split on whether it can reach bad-faith conduct, creating persistent legal uncertainty. The gap extends beyond examination. Civil actions to cancel a bad-faith registration must be brought within five years—a deadline that frequently expires before foreign brand owners discover the squatted mark. Cancellation through the Board of Trademarks remains available but is slow, costly, and subject to court appeal, leaving bad-faith registrations in force during protracted proceedings. The system effectively rewards squatters and penalizes legitimate owners. Lessons from International Best Practices Several major jurisdictions have already closed this gap. China’s 2019 amendment to Article 4 of the Trademark Law introduced an absolute ground for refusal: “bad faith trademark applications without intent to use shall be rejected.” Bad
Read More