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 14, 2026
Myanmar’s first-to-file trademark registration regime under the Trademark Law 2019—which became fully operational in April 2023—provides mark owners with enhanced legal protection compared with the country’s former system. Correspondingly, the current system imposes more rigorous statutory requirements for obtaining, maintaining, and enforcing rights in marks. In this first-to-file trademark registration system, however, evidence of use remains particularly significant, as it may establish acquired distinctiveness, support a claim that a mark is well-known, and strengthen the owner’s position in both registration and enforcement proceedings. Accordingly, it can be said that this framework is underpinned by three key concepts: distinctiveness, well-known status, and, importantly, use of the trademark. Trademark Distinctiveness Under the Trademark Law, signs that lack distinctiveness are generally ineligible for mark protection. These signs include generic terms, basic shapes, unstylized single letters or numerals, and signs that merely describe the kind, quality, quantity, intended purpose, value, geographical origin, production time, or other characteristics of the relevant goods or services. However, a mark that would otherwise be refused on distinctiveness or descriptiveness grounds may be registrable if it has acquired distinctiveness through its use prior to the filing date. To show this, the applicant must demonstrate that the mark became distinctive to relevant consumers through continuous, exclusive, and good-faith use in trade within Myanmar. The burden of proving acquired distinctiveness rests with the mark owner. Accordingly, sufficient evidence demonstrating both use of the mark and the level of consumer recognition attained should be prepared in advance. Well-Known Mark Criteria Myanmar’s Trademark Rules, which govern the substantive examination of mark registration applications, establish criteria for determining well-known marks, aligned with international standards. Where an applicant claims well-known status—whether to overcome a refusal on relative grounds or to oppose a third party’s registration—the registrar will assess the claim based on the following
Read More
September 14, 2026
On August 23, 2026, Vietnam’s National Assembly passed Law No. 11/2026/QH16, amending the country’s Customs Law with effect from March 1, 2027. The amendments represent a substantial reform of Vietnam’s customs-based intellectual property enforcement regime. The reforms come amid considerable external pressure. In its 2026 Special 301 review, the US Trade Representative (USTR) designated Vietnam a “priority foreign country,” citing widespread counterfeiting, weak border enforcement, limited ex officio customs powers, and the absence of controls over goods in transit. Vietnam’s legislative response signals a commitment to bringing its border enforcement practices into line with international expectations. For IP rights holders operating in or through Vietnam, the amended law introduces several tools that substantially strengthen enforcement options at the border. Closing the Transit Gap One of the most consequential amendments is the extension of IP-related customs enforcement to goods in transit. Previously, Vietnam’s customs regime applied IP controls only to goods being imported or exported, a gap the USTR had specifically identified as enabling infringing goods to pass through Vietnamese ports with impunity. Vietnam’s geographic position as a logistics hub for Southeast Asia means that substantial volumes of goods transit its ports and free-trade zones. Extending enforcement to cover these shipments brings Vietnam closer to the standard set by the EU’s customs enforcement regulation and addresses a longstanding concern of multinational brand owners whose goods are frequently counterfeited in the region. Strengthened Suspension and Ex Officio Powers The amended law introduces a dual-track suspension mechanism (Article 73(2)). Customs authorities will suspend clearance upon request by an IP rights holder (or authorized representative) who provides evidence of IP ownership, evidence of infringement, and a financial guarantee. Customs can now proactively suspend clearance on an ex officio basis if, during inspection and monitoring, they discover “clear grounds” to suspect that imported, exported,
Read More
September 7, 2026
Indonesia’s Constitutional Court (Mahkamah Konstitusi) has reinstated a key provision limiting pharmaceutical patent protection, signaling a renewed commitment to balancing patent rights with public access to medicines. In its ruling to Case No. 255/PUU-XXIII/2025, the court partially granted a petition for judicial review of Law No. 65 of 2024, which had amended the country’s Patent Law, and ordered the restoration of a provision that had excluded certain pharmaceutical inventions from patentability. The decision took effect immediately upon its pronouncement at the court’s plenary session on August 28, 2026. Background The petition challenged the removal of article 4(f) from Law No. 13 of 2016 concerning Patents (Patent Law), as amended by Law No. 65 of 2024. Article 4(f) had excluded from patentability certain inventions relating to new uses of known substances. The petitioners argued that removing this provision would open the door to patent protection for second medical use inventions and facilitate patent evergreening—practices that can extend exclusivity periods, delay generic market entry, and reduce public access to affordable medicines. The petitioners included several patient advocacy and public-interest organizations: the Indonesian Dialysis Patients Community Association, the Indonesian Association of Drug Abuse Victims (PKNI), the Indonesian Pulmonary Hypertension Foundation (YHPI), the Rekat Peduli Indonesia Foundation, and the Indonesian Positive Women’s Association (IPPI), along with the Indonesia for Global Justice Association and four individual petitioners. The petitioners also challenged the constitutionality of the phrase “interested party” in article 70(1) of the Patent Law, arguing that it should be construed expressly to clarify who has standing to appeal a decision to grant a patent before the Board of Patent Appeal, and to allow a broader range of parties—such as patent holders, licensees, consumer organizations, prosecutors, aggrieved third parties, and others who may suffer direct or indirect harm from the grant of a patent—to
Read More
September 2, 2026
Thailand and China have a longstanding and significant trade relationship, which increasingly extends to e-commerce and digitally enabled supply chains. While these channels create new opportunities for businesses to reach consumers across borders, their growth also brings greater exposure to intellectual property (IP) infringement across jurisdictions and online platforms. Effective cooperation between the two countries’ enforcement authorities has therefore become increasingly important. To strengthen cooperation in this area, Thailand and China signed a memorandum of understanding (MOU) on IP enforcement in Beijing on July 20, 2026, during the Thai prime minister’s official visit to China. Officially titled “Memorandum of Understanding Between the State Administration for Market Regulation of the People’s Republic of China and the Ministry of Commerce of the Kingdom of Thailand on Cooperation in the Field of Intellectual Property Enforcement,” the MOU forms part of a broader bilateral agenda covering industrial and supply chains, participation by micro, small, and medium-sized enterprises (MSMEs), cooperation associated with the ASEAN–China Free Trade Area 3.0, and progress on the registration of Thai geographical indications in China. The MOU establishes a bilateral framework for cooperation and coordination in five broad areas: Strengthening dialogue in IP enforcement; Enhancing information sharing; Facilitating the enforcement of IP rights in cases arising in the parties’ domestic markets and on online platforms, in accordance with their respective domestic laws; Promoting cooperation in IP enforcement training and human resource development; and Undertaking other cooperation activities agreed upon by both sides. The Department of Intellectual Property (DIP) will serve as the principal coordinating agency for Thailand, while the Bureau of Law Enforcement and Inspection in China’s State Administration for Market Regulation (SAMR) will serve in that role for China. The framework is particularly relevant to the growth of e-commerce, as it covers infringement in the domestic markets and on
Read More