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 14, 2015

Thailand: Grounds to Initiate a Trademark Cancellation Action

Subscribe to Updates
Managing Intellectual Property

Brand owners often wish to seek cancellation of another party’s registered trademark for a range of legitimate reasons, such as unauthorized 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 trademark 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 trademark 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, among others. 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 trademark cited for cancellation is not required to file a response—there is no default judgment. In the absence of the trademark 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 defense 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 trademark.

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

7. Better Right

If a trademark 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, therefore 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 trademark 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.

Download Full Article
Related Professionals

Practices

Intellectual Property

Location

RELATED INSIGHTS​ 

September 30, 2026
Packaging is a valuable commercial asset that helps consumers identify and distinguish products through their shape, colors, graphics, labels, and overall presentation. Obtaining legal protections for these assets is thus an important step. Businesses entering into or operating in the Myanmar market should assess whether trademark protection, industrial design protection, or both provide the strongest IP strategy for these features. The country’s Intellectual Property Department (IPD) under the Ministry of Commerce now administers trademark and industrial design registrations since Myanmar’s modernization of its intellectual property framework through the enactment of four key IP laws in 2019. Trademark Protection for Packaging Under the Trademark Law 2019, a “mark” is any visually perceptible sign, including words, names, letters, numerals, figurative elements, color combinations, or combinations of these signs, capable of distinguishing one undertaking’s goods or services from another’s. Trademark protection may therefore extend to certain elements of product packaging that function as source identifiers. Depending on their presentation and distinctiveness, packaging elements such as brand names, logos, labels, configurations, color combinations, and three-dimensional (3D) shapes may qualify for trademark protection. However, under the current practice of the IPD and its available examination guidelines, the packaging and  trade dress (including product get-up) are not expressly recognized as separate registrable subject matter in Myanmar. Under the Trademark Law 2019, trademark infringement—including unauthorized use of a registered mark on packaging—may give rise to civil remedies, including injunctions and damages, as well as criminal penalties. A 3D mark may protect packaging shape or configuration if it has acquired distinctiveness through use and consumers associate it with the relevant products. However, a shape dictated by a functional or technical purpose is ineligible for registration. Registration of a 3D mark may be renewed indefinitely for successive ten-year periods, subject to compliance with renewal requirements. Industrial Design Protection
Read More
September 30, 2026
Under Thailand’s Patent Act B.E. 2522 (1979), any person may raise the invalidity of a patent as a matter of defense. However, the right to initiate court proceedings to cancel a patent is reserved exclusively for an “interested person” or the public prosecutor. This distinction between merely challenging validity and initiating judicial revocation proceedings has given rise to a significant body of Supreme Court (Dika) jurisprudence interpreting who qualifies as an “interested person” under the Patent Act. Statutory Framework Section 54 of the Patent Act provides that any invention patent granted not in compliance with the patentability requirements will be invalid, and that a petition to cancel such a patent may be submitted to the court by any “interested person” or the public prosecutor. Section 64 mirrors this provision for design patents, and section 65 novies extends the same framework to petty patents. However, none of these provisions defines the term “interested person,” leaving its interpretation to the courts. Supreme Court Interpretation The Thai Supreme Court has developed a consistent body of case law establishing that an “interested person” must be someone directly affected by the existence of the patent—not simply any member of the public. In 1989, the court found (Dika No. 2670/2532) that a party whose intended use of the patented technology was still in a preparatory stage—before actual manufacturing had commenced—did not qualify as an interested person. However, in 2009 the Supreme Court further elaborated  (Dika No. 2906/2552) that an interested party is one whose rights to utilize the invention are restricted by virtue of the patent, such as a manufacturer or producer whose operations are directly impacted by the patentee’s exclusive rights. In the 2008 case of T.M. Grating Steel Co., Ltd. v. Billion Mass Industry Co., Ltd. (Dika No. 974/2551), where the plaintiff had
Read More
September 24, 2026
Vietnam is implementing and developing a broad package of regulatory reforms that could reshape how IP, data, digital platforms, and product authenticity are regulated and enforced. Several of the key measures have been led by the Ministry of Public Security in its legislative and administrative capacity, as part of a broader government effort. The core reform package consists of four key legal instruments: proposed amendments to the Criminal Code, a proposed new Data Security Law, a draft Decree on Product Identification, Authentication and Traceability, and the newly enacted Decree No. 330/2026/ND-CP. These instruments include rules on criminal enforcement, data security, electronic identification, product identification and traceability, administrative violations, and cybersecurity sanctions. Combined, these measures will affect copyright enforcement, industrial property rights, trade secrets, AI training data, product provenance, online takedowns, valuation of counterfeit goods and electronic evidence. It is worth noting that, in addition to strengthening criminal penalties for IP crimes, Vietnam’s emerging regulatory framework increasingly treats infringement, data misuse, product authentication, and platform-enabled violations as interconnected regulatory and enforcement challenges. For rights holders and foreign investors, this could mean stronger tools against counterfeiting and online infringement, but also more compliance obligations around data, traceability, AI, platform controls and government-facing reporting. Expansion of Criminal IP Enforcement Proposed amendments to Article 225 of the Criminal Code would expand criminal copyright exposure beyond reproduction and distribution to cover large-scale commercial public performance and online communication of works, phonograms and video recordings. This is important because piracy is increasingly about streaming, unauthorized communication, and platform access models rather than physical copying. Aggravated copyright infringement could be subject to up to 10 years in prison for individuals and fines of up to VND 6 billion (about USD 228,300) for commercial legal entities. The amended Article 226 would expand criminal industrial property liability beyond
Read More
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