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

August 25, 2014

Supreme Court: Generic or Common Words May Be Distinctive

Subscribe to Updates
World Trademark Review

The Thai Trademark Act provides no restriction on the registration of marks that consist of Roman letters, Arabic numerals, mathematical symbols, scientific symbols, or abbreviations. However, in practice trademark registrars order that such elements be disclaimed or reject applications for marks consisting of such elements in their entirety on the ground that these elements are common or generic terms, or have general meanings. Therefore, many applicants simply decide to disclaim such elements in their marks in order to allow the registration process to continue. However, there is still a risk that marks consisting of such generic elements will be considered unregistrable. Some trademark owners challenge refusals by the registrar by initiating a lawsuit before the Central Intellectual Property & International Trade Court (IP&IT Court).

In 2007, Club 21 Private Limited filed three applications to register the trademark/service mark CLUB 21 for goods and services in Class 16 (magazines), Class 25 (shirts and sports shirts), and Class 35 (market research, sales promotion, opinion surveys, providing business information and business management consultancy services) of the Nice Classification.

The registrar opined that Club 21’s trademark was not distinctive, as the word “club” is a common word meaning an organization for people who have a common interest in a particular activity, and does not enable the public or customers to distinguish goods or services bearing that mark from the goods or services of others. In addition, the registrar stated that the number 21 in Arabic numerals does not have any special characteristics. Hence, the three applications were rejected.

Club 21 filed appeal petitions with the Board of Trademarks, which confirmed the rejection orders. Club 21 (as plaintiff) then appealed to the IP&IT Court through a civil suit against the Department of Intellectual Property (as defendant). The IP&IT Court found that the plaintiff’s trademark was registrable, as the mark made no direct reference to the character or quality of the goods and services at issue. The Department of Intellectual Property disagreed with the IP&IT Court’s judgment and filed an appeal petition with the Supreme Court.

On May 27, 2014, the Supreme Court pronounced its judgment. The Supreme Court ruled that the plaintiff’s trademark was distinctive under Section 7 of the Trademark Act, and further elaborated that “a distinctive trademark” is one which enables the public or users to distinguish the goods bearing that mark from the goods of others. The provisions of the Trademark Act do not stipulate that a generic word or a word with a general meaning cannot be distinctive.

Although the plaintiff’s trademark was composed of the word “club” and the number 21, which are both common, the combination of these two elements made no direct reference to the character or quality of the goods and services specified in the applications. Moreover, the plaintiff’s trademark consisted of an invented device, in which the number 21 was written in larger letters above the word “club” within a square shape.

Therefore, the plaintiff’s trademark enabled the public or users to distinguish the goods or services on which the trademark was used from the goods or services of others, and was thus distinctive. Consequently, the Supreme Court revoked the registrar’s orders and the board’s decisions, and ordered the defendant to proceed with the registration of the plaintiff’s trademark for the goods and services at issue.

This judgment shows that the Supreme Court takes a broad view when considering the distinctiveness of trademarks. Roman letters, Arabic numerals, mathematical symbols, scientific symbols, abbreviations, or any combination of these elements should be accepted for registration and considered distinctive, as long as they make no direct reference to the character or quality of the goods or services specified in the application.

Download Full Article
Related Professionals

Practices

Dispute Resolution and Litigation

Intellectual Property

Location

RELATED INSIGHTS​ 

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
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