Closing the Gap: A Reform Blueprint for Addressing Bad-Faith Trademark Registration in Thailand

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 faith can now be raised at examination, opposition, and invalidation, with no time limit for well-known mark cases. Articles 19 and 68 impose liability on agents who knowingly assist bad-faith filings.

The UK Trade Marks Act 1994, Section 3(6), makes bad faith an absolute ground for refusal with no time limit for invalidity actions. The EU Trademark Directive (2015/2436), Article 5(4)(b), similarly treats bad faith as a basis for both refusal and cancellation, and under EUTMR Article 59(1)(b), no time bar applies.

These leading IP regimes all treat bad faith as an absolute ground that can be raised at every stage without temporal restriction.

A Reform Blueprint: Proposed Amendments

We propose four targeted amendments to the Thai Trademark Act. First, a new Section should establish bad faith as an express absolute ground for refusal: “a mark shall not be registered if the application is made in bad faith.” This would give examiners clear statutory authority and eliminate reliance on the strained Section 8(9) workaround.

Second, Sections 35 and 61–62 should be amended to include bad faith as a ground for opposition and cancellation, ensuring it can be raised at every stage of the trademark lifecycle.

Third, the five-year limitation period should be removed for bad-faith cancellation actions brought before the court, following the EU and Chinese models, which impose no time bar.

Fourth, a provision modeled on China’s Articles 19 and 68 should impose penalties on trademark agents who knowingly assist in filing bad-faith applications, targeting the intermediaries who enable systematic squatting.

Conclusion

Thailand’s trademark regime cannot afford to remain silent on bad faith. The statutory gap undermines brand owners’ rights and damages Thailand’s attractiveness for foreign investment. The blueprint proposed here, grounded in AIPPI Resolution Q249 and proven international models, offers a clear path forward. Thailand should enact these reforms without delay.