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​ 

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