Intellectual Property




LLB, Ramkhamhaeng University

Prasipha Phatthana-Olarn
+66 2056 5862


Prasipha Phatthana-Olarn is an associate who specializes in pre-litigation strategy in Tilleke & Gibbins’ intellectual property group. Focusing on enforcing trademarks and other intellectual property, Prasipha’s expertise extends beyond the applicable civil and criminal laws to government relations and liaising on investigation and enforcement activities. A specialist in the mechanics of protecting trademarks, Prasipha collects evidence and drafts appeal petitions, oppositions, cancellations, counterstatements, and related responses for filing with the Registrar or the Board of Trademarks.

Prasipha is a notarial services attorney and a member of Thai Bar Association and the Lawyers Council of Thailand. In 2012, she completed the “Development of Specialist in Trademark Registration” course at the Thai Department of Intellectual Property. She has also completed the "International Practice and Intellectual Property Litigation" course offered by the Institute of Legal Education of the Thai Bar.

  • Registered a trademark in Class 31, covering agricultural products and fruits, seeds, etc. When we initially sought registration of the mark, the Registrar refused the application because the mark was similar to a registered trademark. We successfully cancelled the registered trademark at the Board of Trademarks on the grounds that the registered mark was contrary to public order, good morality, and/or public policy.
  • Registered and defended a trademark in Class 5. Following the registration of the trademark, a different applicant sought to register a similar trademark in a different class, Class 31. We succeeded in cancelling the mark in Class 31 at the Board of Trademarks on the grounds that the products of both parties were related and a similar trademark could cause confusion on the ownership and nature of the products.
  • Appealed the Registrar’s denial of our client’s trademark application in Class 18. The Registrar held that the mark was not distinctive and was similar to a registered trademark. The Board of Trademarks reversed the decision of the Registrar.
  • Opposed the registration of a trademark that was similar to the unregistered mark of our clients as applied to bicycles and accessories. The Registrar held that the client had a better right to the mark and that the opponents’ mark was similar to the trademark of the client.