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 23, 2016

Thailand: Record Damages Awarded in Trademark Case

Subscribe to Updates
Managing Intellectual Property

“Born in Canada, Living in London, Made in Italy” is the brand motto of Dsquared2, the famous international fashion brand originally created by Dean and Dan Caten, twin brothers from Canada who have used the series of trademarks D2, DSQUARED, D2 DSQUARED2, and DSQUARED2 since 1994.

The trademarks were filed in many countries under the name Belmont Brands Ltd., and they were subsequently assigned to DSquared2 TM S.A. In Thailand, however, DSquared2 discovered that its trademarks had already been registered by a Thai company that is also in the fashion industry.

Not only were the trademarks already registered under the name of the local Thai company and its directors, but the Thai company had also opened shops in several major shopping malls in Bangkok under the infringing name, DSQUARED2.

In order to reclaim their rights to their brand, Belmont Brands Ltd., the plaintiff, and DSquared2 TM S.A., the coplaintiff and assignee of the trademarks from the plaintiff, brought a civil litigation case against the Thai company and its two directors. The case was filed at the Intellectual Property and International Trade Court (IP&IT Court) in April 2010.

The plaintiff requested the court to order the cancellation of all trademark applications and registrations of the first defendant that are similar to the plaintiff’s series of trademarks, namely D2, D2 DSQUARED, DSQUARED2, and DSQUARED. The plaintiff also requested the court to order the defendants to cease all use of the trade name DSQUARED2 as the name of their stores and jointly pay the compensation to the plaintiff.

In February 2011, the IP&IT Court pronounced its judgment naming the plaintiff as the original owner of the trademark DSQUARED2, reasoning that the plaintiff had a better right than the defendants to the disputed trademarks for the goods in Classes 3, 9, 14, 16, 18, 20, 24, 25, 26, and 35. The defendants were found to have passed off their products as the plaintiff’s for the purpose of confusing or misleading the public into believing that their products belonged to the plaintiff.

The IP&IT Court ordered that the defendants be prohibited from: (1) imitating the plaintiff’s trademarks and products; and (2) using DSQUARED2 as their trade name and the name of their stores. The Court subsequently cancelled the first defendant’s 17 registered trademarks as well as its one pending trademark application. The Court also ordered the defendants to compensate the plaintiff in the amount of THB 100,000 per month, calculated from the date the plaintiff filed the complaint until the defendants withdrew their registered trademarks, or the date the defendants ceased infringing on the plaintiff’s trademarks.

The defendants appealed the IP&IT Court’s decision to the Supreme Court in April 2011. In February 2016, the Supreme Court announced its judgment affirming the IP&IT Court’s judgment and amending only one issue—the defendants must pay compensation to the plaintiff in the amount of THB 100,000 per month from the date the plaintiff filed the complaint until the defendants cease infringing the plaintiff’s trademarks and products and cease using DSQUARED2 as their trade name and the name of their shops. The total compensation accumulated to approximately THB 6-7 million, which is believed to be the highest amount of compensation that defendants have ever been ordered to pay the plaintiff in a trademark litigation case based on “passing off.”

This will serve as a landmark case for international companies looking to operate a business in Thailand that fall victim to their trademarks and trade names being stolen by a local company. This case demonstrates that Thai trademark law provides effective means for original trademark owners to prove their better right over their marks. The amount of compensation granted by the Court is also improving as the Court increasingly recognizes the value of intellectual property and the damage that arises from infringement.

It is significant, however, that it took the legitimate owners of the mark nearly a decade to reach a resolution affirming their better right to the mark. This is an area where the Thai system could benefit from further improvement. In any event, trademark owners are encouraged to seek protection for their trademarks as soon as possible, as it will save them unnecessary stress, time, and costly legal disputes revolving around the legitimate owner of a mark.

Download Full Article
Related Professionals

Practices

Dispute Resolution and Litigation

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 4, 2026
Thailand’s cabinet has approved two draft amendments aimed at improving labor-related judicial proceedings. The proposed amendments to the Act on the Establishment of Labor Courts and Labor Case Procedure B.E. 2522 (1979) and the Act on Procedures for Human Trafficking Cases B.E. 2559 (2016) are intended to make the process more efficient, appropriate, and fair. Key elements of these proposed amendments are outlined below. Expansion of Labor Court Jurisdiction Under the current framework, labor courts generally hear labor disputes, while criminal offenses under labor laws are handled separately. Matters involving both labor and criminal issues may therefore require the parties to pursue proceedings before different courts. To address this, the proposed amendments would expand the jurisdiction of labor courts to cover certain criminal offenses under labor laws. The government states that the change is intended to allow related issues to be heard by judges with expertise in labor law and to reduce the need for parallel proceedings. The proposed amendments also set out the following rules for cases involving multiple offenses. Where a single act gives rise to multiple offenses and at least one of those offenses falls within the jurisdiction of the labor court, the labor court may hear the related offenses as part of the same case. Where multiple connected acts give rise to different offenses, the labor court may hear the matters together or transfer part of the case to the appropriate court, taking into account convenience and the interests of justice. Criminal Offenses Covered The proposed amendments would extend labor court jurisdiction to criminal offenses under 11 labor-related laws, including laws concerning: Home workers protection Labor protection Labor protection in fisheries work Employment and job-seeker protection Management of foreign workers Social security Occupational safety, health, and working environment Compensation Maritime labor State enterprise labor relations
Read More