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

December 7, 2020

Canceling a Thai Trademark Registered in Bad Faith

Subscribe to Updates
Informed Counsel

It is not unusual for brand owners to take a closer look at the Thai market for their products only to find that a third party has already applied for registration of their trademark. Brand owners who face this situation usually become aware of it when they consider entering the Thai market after their brand has already become famous and successful elsewhere. Well-known marks are often usurped when a bad-faith applicant intentionally registers a trademark to benefit from the goodwill and reputation associated with that trademark. As Thailand is a first-to-file system for trademark registration, supplying proof of intention to use is not a requirement for registration. Thus, if a legitimate brand owner has never registered their trademark in Thailand, a bad-faith applicant might take advantage of this opening to file another person’s trademark in his or her own name.

Overlooking the early securing of trademark rights in Thailand can lead to complex problems, even when brand owners have a relationship with a distributor in Thailand. The problem usually comes to light when a brand owner seeks to end their relationship with one distributor and start a business relationship with a new partner. In some cases, brand owners are blindsided when they learn that the previous distributor had surreptitiously filed for registration of the trademark in the distributor’s own name without alerting them—meaning that the former distributor now holds exclusive rights over the use of the trademark in Thailand.

After finding out about a bad-faith trademark registration, many brand owners seek to cancel the Thai registration of the trademark to which they have better rights than the registrant. The Trademark Act provides several mechanisms that brand owners can rely on to pursue cancellation of trademark’s registration; however, none of the law’s provisions clearly state the possibility of canceling a trademark registered in bad faith. Below, we explore two possible  methods for cancellation of a bad-faith registration, depending on which authority considers the matter.

Cancellation with Board of Trademarks

A cancellation petition may be filed with the Board of Trademarks through one of two routes—one for “interested parties” (that is, affected parties, such as a legitimate brand owner) and one for anyone. While neither route is based on legal provisions clearly stating how to cancel a registration based on a bad-faith argument, they are viable possibilities for those seeking cancellation, with different criteria and requirements pertaining to each route.

If an interested party files a cancellation petition with the Board of Trademarks to challenge the mark’s general registrability, the board will re-examine the distinctiveness, similarity, and legality grounds under section 61 of the Trademark Act. As a legitimate brand owner usually qualifies as an interested party, that owner can file a petition to cancel the mark on grounds that it is identical or confusingly similar to the legitimate owner’s trademark, which was already registered outside of Thailand, and should therefore not have been filed.

A person not claiming interested-party status who wishes to file a cancellation petition must be of the opinion that the registered trademark is contrary to public order, morality, or public policy (Trademark Act, Section 62). As a bad-faith filing may be interpreted as contrary to these things, it should qualify for cancellation.

However, proving the bad faith of the registrant to the Board of Trademarks can be difficult, since there are no witness hearings. The Board of Trademarks considers only documentary evidence, which usually does not clearly reveal the registrant’s intention, whether the registrant possessed knowledge of the original brand, or whether they intentionally copied the original brand to be registered as their own.

Cancellation with the IP&IT Court

Better right grounds—that is, assertions that the genuine brand owner has a more legitimate right to use their own trademark than the registrant in Thailand does—are typically the most relevant legal grounds for cancellation of a trademark registered in bad faith. Section 67 of the Trademark Act provides that a legitimate owner may file a lawsuit for cancellation of a bad-faith trademark registration on better right grounds in the Central Intellectual Property and International Trade Court (IP&IT Court), provided that it has been registered for less than five years.

If a trademark has been registered for more than five years, it cannot be cancelled. This has already been challenged in court, with at least one brand owner arguing that the five-year limitation should only apply if the trademark in question was filed in good faith, and that brand owners should be able to cancel trademarks registered in bad faith even after the five-year period has expired. However, the Supreme Court rejected the argument and ruled that, as the five-year time period had expired, the trademark registration in that case could not be cancelled despite the brand owner having a better right to it.

Proving the bad faith of the registrant can be easier and have higher chances of success in the IP&IT Court, so most legitimate brand owners opt to do this rather than file a cancellation against a bad-faith registration through the Board of Trademarks. Again, however, if the trademark registration has been active for longer than five years, the IP&IT Court will reject the request.

Canceling Long-Standing Bad-Faith Registrations

Despite this conservative approach, it can still be possible for a legitimate trademark owner to cancel a bad-faith registration that has been active longer than five years, especially when there is a precedent judgment ruling  that the trademark was filed in bad faith. In this case, the cancellation petition—along with evidence of the prior ruling—should be filed with the Board of Trademarks, which would consider the evidence and may cancel the trademark.

Tilleke & Gibbins has had a great deal of success with this approach, including in a recent case on behalf of a leading fertilizer company, which had filed a cancellation petition with the Board of Trademarks. Since there was a precedent judgment ruling that the disputed trademark was filed in bad faith, the Board of Trademarks ordered the cancellation of the trademark. The owner of the cancelled trademark then appealed the decision to the IP&IT Court, which agreed that the trademark was filed in bad faith, dismissed the case, and confirmed that the Board of Trademarks had correctly ordered the cancellation. The case was further appealed to the Specialized Appeal Court, which affirmed the IP&IT Court’s judgment, reasoning that the Board of Trademarks remains empowered to cancel a registered trademark under Sections 61 and 62 of the Thai Trademark Act, even if the bad-faith trademark has been in force for more than five years.

Selecting a Strategy

In summary, the legitimate owner of a trademark has a number of options for seeking cancellation of a trademark registered in bad faith. For marks that have been registered for less than five years, brand owners can file a petition with either the Board of Trademarks or the IP&IT Court. If a bad-faith trademark registration has been active for longer than five years, brand owners may still be able to file a cancellation petition with the Board of Trademarks. Withthese options, brand owners should be in a favorable position if they find that their intellectual property has been infringed upon by a bad-faith trademark registration in Thailand. At that point, it will be important to assess the circumstances of the case and develop a comprehensive legal strategy accordingly to regain full exclusive rights over the trademark.

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