Managing IP is part of the Delinian Group, Delinian Limited, 8 Bouverie Street, London, EC4Y 8AX, Registered in England & Wales, Company number 00954730
Copyright © Delinian Limited and its affiliated companies 2023

Accessibility | Terms of Use | Privacy Policy | Modern Slavery Statement

Thailand: Grounds to initiate a trade mark cancellation action

Brand owners often wish to seek cancellation of another party's registered trade mark for a range of legitimate reasons, such as unauthorised registration of the mark by a dealer or registration of a copycat mark by a third party. These issues can cause impediments to business and should be addressed without delay.

In Thailand, a party who wishes to initiate trade mark cancellation proceedings must generally do so with the Board of Trademarks. The Board of Trademarks' decision can be appealed to the Intellectual Property and International Trade Court (IP&IT Court), and ultimately, to the Supreme Court. A petitioner can seek trade mark cancellation on the following grounds:

1) Non-distinctiveness

A generic or descriptive meaning may not be obvious at the time of examination; therefore, it may be inadvertently granted registration, and later marks comprised of the same term could be rejected by the registrar on the basis of non-distinctiveness.

2) Prohibited marks

In Thailand, certain elements in marks are prohibited, including Thailand's national flag, other countries' national flags and national emblems, official emblems, and emblems of the Red Cross. A mark that consists of prohibited elements is unregistrable.

In practice, registrars request trademark applicants to remove prohibited elements from their marks prior to granting registration. It is rare to find registered marks comprised of prohibited elements in the Trademark Office's records; therefore, this ground is rarely used.

3) Identical or confusing similarity to a prior registered mark

Under the Thai Trademark Act, later-filed confusingly similar marks in the same or related classes of goods and/or services are rejected. This ground is popular and often used.

The examiner's determination as to similarity is subjective, particularly for identical or confusingly similar marks in other classes where the goods and/or services are related. This can either be advantageous or disadvantageous, depending on the examiner.

4) Contrary to public order, morality or public policy

In Thailand, cancellation actions can be filed on multiple bases, and in practice, they are often supplemented with the ground that a mark is contrary to public order, morality or public policy. To use this ground, it is necessary to prove that the mark subject to cancellation was registered in bad faith. This ground is also often used when it is difficult to base a cancellation action on other grounds.

5) Non-use

Brand owners often wish to seek cancellation of an existing mark on the grounds of non-use, but this approach carries strict evidentiary hurdles. The burden of proof to demonstrate non-use is on the petitioner, and the owner of the trade mark cited for cancellation is not required to file a response – there is no default judgment. In the absence of the trade mark owner's response, the Board of Trademarks will consider the petitioner's proof of non-use, which must demonstrate absolute non-use for three years.

The Board of Trademarks rarely approves a cancellation based solely on a non-use investigation result. Other factors need to be proven, such as closure of the owner's company, lack of registration of the goods or services with the relevant authority (where applicable), and so forth.

In addition, the owner of the mark subject to cancellation is entitled to mount a defence by proving that non-use of the mark on goods was due to exceptional circumstances in trade and not due to any intention to not use or to abandon the mark in respect of the goods, as allowed by the law.

In light of these factors, a cancellation action based on non-use is not a dependable option to remove a mark in Thailand.

6) Loss of distinctive character

A cancellation action based on loss of distinctive character must be filed at the IP&IT Court. An interested person or a registrar can use this ground if a registered mark has become a term that is common to trade for some goods or some classes of goods and is no longer capable of functioning as a trade mark.

Cancellations on this ground are rare, and using the symbols "®" or "TM," affixed to the trade mark, can prevent a cancellation based on loss of distinctive character.

7) Better right

If a trade mark has been registered for less than five years, counted from the registrar's ordered date of registration, a better-right cancellation action can be requested from the IP&IT Court directly, saving time and costs. Proving prior registration, prior use or a trade relationship with the owner of the mark subject to cancellation can support this action.

While this article presents general guidelines for the available grounds in Thailand, petitioners should understand that trade mark cancellation actions are often a last resort, due to the time and costs involved. Brand owners should assess their real commercial needs and evaluate whether a cancellation action will help them achieve their specific business objectives.


Rungroj Kobkitwattanakul

Tilleke & GibbinsSupalai Grand Tower, 26th Floor1011 Rama 3 Road, Chongnonsi, YannawaBangkok, Thailand 10120Tel: +66 2653 5555Fax: +66 2653

more from across site and ros bottom lb

More from across our site

Counsel are eying domestic industry, concurrent PTAB proceedings and heightened scrutiny of cases before institution
Jack Daniel’s has a good chance of winning its dispute over dog toys, but SCOTUS will still want to protect free speech, predict sources
AI users and lawyers discuss why the rulebook for registering AI-generated content may create problems and needs further work
We provide a rundown of Managing IP’s news and analysis coverage from the week, and review what’s been happening elsewhere in IP
A technical effect must still be evident in the original patent filing, the EBoA said in its G2/21 decision today, March 23
Brands should not be deterred from pursuing lookalike producers, and an unfair advantage claim could be the key, say Emma Teichmann and Geoff Steward at Stobbs
Justice Mellor’s highly anticipated ruling surprised SEP owners and reassured implementers that the UK may not be so hostile after all
The England and Wales High Court's judgment comes ahead of a separate hearing concerning one of the patents-in-suit at the EPO
While the rules allow foreign firms to open local offices and offer IP services, a ban on litigation and practising Indian law could mean little will change
A New York federal court heard oral arguments this week in a copyright case pitting publishing giants against a digital library