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 1, 2014

Describing Goods and Services for Trademark Registration in Thailand

Informed Counsel

On March 1, 2013, Thailand adopted into its system of  trademark registration the Tenth Edition of the Nice Agreement, under which there are 34 classifications of goods (Classes 1 to 34) and 11 classifications of services (Classes 35 to 45). The classifications—collectively known as the International Classification of Goods and Services—are generally followed by Thailand’s trademark registrars, but at times, they require clearer and more specific descriptions for certain goods and services.

In this article, we explore the ways in which goods and services should be described in order for them to be accepted by trademark registrars in the desired classification for trademark registration in Thailand.

The Classification System

Under Section 9 of the Thai Trademark Act B.E. 2534 (1991), an application to register a trademark may be made for particular kinds of goods. Most applicants wish to obtain the broadest protection possible when filing a trademark application—by identifying their products in broadly descriptive terms, applicants make accommodation for the future expansion of their business and products. Thailand’s trademark registrars, however, do not accept terms that are broad in nature, such as class headings and most sub-class headings—instead, goods and services must be individually listed on an item-by-item basis.

On the other hand, descriptions that are excessively detailed may cause the applicant’s product to be classified in alternate classes and, as such, should be deleted. In addition, applicants should avoid using the following unpermitted words and combinations of words in the specification: “including,” “especially,” “thereof,” “for example,” and “such as.”

Amending Numbers of Goods

Recently, trademark registrars in Thailand have refused petitions to amend filed goods which increase the number of goods originally filed for, even if the amended goods are within the scope of the broader goods. With this in mind, applicants should specify their products in detail when filing their original application. Applicants should also be sure to list the number of goods for each item separately when filing their trademark application form.

Inappropriate Descriptions and Recommendations

We list below some examples of inappropriate descriptions of goods and services and our recommendations for how they should be amended:

  • In Class 1, the terms “chemicals” and “chemicals used in industry” are inappropriate descriptions. Applicants should describe the goods in more detail, e.g., “chemical substances for use in the cosmetics industry,” “chemical substances for use in the chemical industry,” etc. As this class does not include chemicals for medical science, the term “other than for medical or veterinary purposes” may be used for unclear specifications (such as chemical preparations for analyses in laboratories, other than for medical or veterinary purposes, etc.). 
  • In Class 3, the terms “cosmetics,” “make-up,” and “perfumery” are inappropriate descriptions. More specificity is needed. Previously, the term “cosmetics for use with eyes, lips, cheeks, and hair” was considered appropriate, but now, it is no longer accepted. However, terms such as “facial make-up kits,” “facial skin care cosmetic kits,” and “body skin care cosmetic kits” are accepted. Instead of using “perfumery,” applicants may use “perfume,” “eau de cologne,” and “eau de toilet.”
  • In Class 5, applicants may use the term “for medical use” to describe goods which are unclear and may be classified in other classes, e.g., “nutritional additives for medical use,” “nutritional food supplements for medical use,” “dietetic beverages for medical use,” etc.
  • In Class 7, applicants may use the terms “machines” or “parts of machines” to describe unclear goods. Examples include “drilling press (machines),” “electric cutters (machines),” “caulking guns (parts of machines),” “air spray guns (parts of machines),” “valves (parts of machines),” “crankcases (parts of machines),” etc.
  • In Class 10, for unclear goods that may be classified in other classes, applicants may add the term “for medical purposes” to describe these goods. Examples are “x-ray apparatus,” “x-ray photographs,” “x-ray tubes,” “protection devices against x-rays,” etc.
  • In Class 25, the terms “pants” and “shoes” are inappropriate descriptions. The term “pants” should be specified as “pants (excluding sports pants and underpants),” “sports pants,” or “underpants.” Similarly, the broad term “shoes” must be broken down as either “shoes (excluding sports shoes)” or “sports shoes.”
  • In Class 28, the term “toys” is an inappropriate description, but the terms “toys made of plastic,” “toys made of rubber,” “toys made of metal,” and “toys made of paper” are acceptable.
  • In Class 35, the term “retail services” is inappropriate. The terms “business management assistance for retail services” and “the bringing together, for the benefit of others, of a variety of goods, enabling customers to conveniently view and purchase those goods” are recommended for applicants seeking broad protection for these kinds of services.

How to Approach Trademark Registrars

The International Classification of Goods and Services provides helpful general guidelines for developing descriptions, but because it contains few examples, it is by no means a definitive guide. In addition, not all of the descriptions that are stated in the system can be relied upon, as some of the items have not been accepted by trademark registrars.

Past experience in working with particular trademark registrars is crucial in understanding their requirements for acceptable specifications. Goods that applicants have registered in the past, however, may later become unacceptable, as each trademark registrar can differ in their points of view. Therefore, in dealing with trademark registrars, applicants should expect the unexpected, and take measures to fully understand the current practice.

Related Professionals

RELATED INSIGHTS​

July 24, 2024
Experts from Tilleke & Gibbins’ intellectual property team have contributed an updated Intellectual Property Transactions in Vietnam to Thomson Reuters Practical Law, a high-level comparative overview of  laws and regulations across multiple jurisdictions. Intellectual Property Transactions focuses on business-related aspects of intellectual property, such as the value of intellectual assets in M&A transactions, and the licensing of IP portfolios. Key topics covered in the chapter include: IP assignment: Basis and formalities for assignments of patents, utility models, trademarks, copyright, design rights, trade secrets, confidential information, and domain names. IP licensing: Scope and formalities for licensing patents, utility models, trademarks, copyright, design rights, and trade secrets. Research and development collaborations. IP audits. IP aspects of M&A: Due diligence, warranties/indemnities, and transfer of IPRs. Employee and consultant agreements. Practical Law, a legal reference resource from Thomson Reuters, publishes a range of guides for hundreds of jurisdictions and practice areas. The Intellectual Property Transactions Global Guide is a valuable resource for legal practitioners, covering numerous jurisdictions worldwide. To view the latest version of the Intellectual Property Transactions in Vietnam overview, please visit the Practical Law website and enroll in the free Practical Law trial to gain full access.
July 24, 2024
Intellectual property specialists from Tilleke & Gibbins in Thailand have contributed an updated Intellectual Property Transactions in Thailand overview for Thomson Reuters Practical Law, an online publication that provides comprehensive legal guides for jurisdictions worldwide. The Thailand overview was authored by Darani Vachanavuttivong, managing partner of Tilleke & Gibbins and managing director of the firm’s regional IP practice; Titikaan Ungbhakorn, senior associate and patent agent; and San Chaithiraphant, senior associate. The chapter delivers a high-level examination of critical aspects of IP law, including IP assignment and licensing, research and development collaborations, IP in mergers and acquisitions (M&A), securing loans with intellectual property rights, settlement agreements, employee-related IP issues, competition law, taxation, and non-tariff trade barriers. Key topics covered in the chapter include: IP assignment: Basis and formalities for assignments of patents, utility models, trademarks, copyright, design rights, trade secrets, confidential information, and domain names. IP licensing: Scope and formalities for licensing patents, utility models, trademarks, copyright, design rights, and trade secrets. Research and development collaborations: Management of improvements, derivatives, and joint ownership of IP. IP aspects of M&A: Due diligence and critical considerations during mergers and acquisitions. Practical Law, a legal reference resource from Thomson Reuters, publishes a range of guides for hundreds of jurisdictions and practice areas. The Intellectual Property Transactions Global Guide is a valuable resource for legal practitioners, covering numerous jurisdictions worldwide. To view the latest version of the Intellectual Property Transactions in Thailand overview, please visit the Practical Law website and enroll in the free Practical Law trial to gain full access.
July 24, 2024
Acted as lead counsel for Nordic Transport Group A/S (NTG), an international freight forwarding company based in Denmark, in its acquisition of a stake in Asia-based Freightzen Logistics Ltd., Inc. through a newly established subsidiary, NTG APAC Holding Pte. Ltd.
July 23, 2024
In the Who’s Who Legal (WWL) Southeast Asia guide for 2024, a total of 12 Tilleke & Gibbins lawyers have been distinguished as market leaders in various legal practice areas. The firm’s 12 recognized lawyers, singled out for their commitment to delivering exceptional legal services to Tilleke & Gibbins’ clients, are grouped into seven practice areas: Asset Recovery: Thawat Damsa-ard Data: Alan Adcock, Athistha (Nop) Chitranukroh Franchise: Alan Adcock, Jay Cohen Intellectual Property: Alan Adcock (Patents, Trademarks), Darani Vachanavuttivong (Patents, Trademarks), Kasama Sriwatanakul (Trademarks), Linh Thi Mai Nguyen (Trademarks), Somboon Earterasarun (Trademarks), Wongrat Ratanaprayul (Patents) Investigations: John Frangos and Thawat Damsa-ard Labor, Employment, and Benefits: Pimvimol (June) Vipamaneerut Life Sciences: Alan Adcock, Loc Xuan Le The annual WWL Southeast Asia rankings guide, published by the London-based group Law Business Research, aims to identify the foremost legal practitioners across a range of business law practice areas. The rankings are largely based on feedback and nominations received from other WWL-ranked and nominated attorneys around the world. These peer-driven recognitions highlight Tilleke & Gibbins’ dedication to maintaining the highest standards of legal service and helping clients achieve success. To read more about the WWL Southeast Asia guide, or to browse the full results, please visit the WWL website.