In Thailand’s fashion and accessories market, trademark protection is essential for preserving brand distinctiveness. Yet, foreign applicants often encounter challenges when seeking protection for unconventional marks such as patterns. This case note examines a recent provisional refusal issued against a pattern mark in Class 25 and highlights important considerations for applicants filing under the Madrid Protocol.

A foreign fashion brand applied for trademark protection in Thailand for a pattern design under the Madrid Protocol, covering goods in Class 25, including head scarves and scarves.

The Trademark Registrar issued a total provisional refusal on two grounds:

Lack of distinctiveness — The pattern mark lacked specific boundaries or unique elements that would allow consumers to identify it as coming from a single source, making it non-distinctive under Section 7, first paragraph of the Thai Trademark Act.

Vague goods description — Terms such as “head scarf” and “scarf” were considered too broad under Section 9, requiring amendment to more precise terminology.

• Distinctiveness of Pattern Marks
  In Thailand, patterns must have clear and defined boundaries or distinctive features that consumers can recognize as a trademark.
• Lack of Boundaries Issue
  A repeating or general pattern without a defined application area is often refused because it can be seen as decoration rather than a trademark.
• Specification Clarity
  Goods must be described using precise terms accepted by the DIP, avoiding generic or overly broad descriptions.

1. Define Pattern Boundaries – Provide a clear depiction showing how the pattern is applied to the goods.
2. Enhance Distinctive Elements – Add unique motifs, color schemes, or arrangements that stand out from generic decorative designs.
3. Be Specific in Goods Lists – Use exact product names accepted by the DIP’s Goods and Services Lists.
4. Consider Alternative Filing Strategies – Where patterns may be seen as decorative, combine them with a logo or word mark.

This case illustrates Thailand’s strict examination of pattern marks, especially where they could be perceived as mere decoration. It also shows how both distinctiveness and goods description issues can block registration.

When a pattern mark application is refused in Thailand, one of the most effective strategies is to re-file the application with improvements that address the examiner’s concerns. To enhance distinctiveness, brand owners should define the boundaries of the pattern within a single frame and present the design in a way that is not merely decorative but capable of functioning as a trademark. This can be achieved by adopting an unusual arrangement, adding distinctive elements that set the design apart from ordinary decorative patterns, or even incorporating a logo or brand name into the pattern itself to reinforce brand identity. In addition, applicants must pay close attention to the goods description, as overly broad or vague terms are often rejected by the Department of Intellectual Property (DIP). In such cases, narrowing the specification to precise and acceptable terminology is essential. For example, in the case of “head scarf” and “scarf,” both items are already included in the DIP’s database of accepted terms, meaning that the applicant can re-file a new application using these same descriptions without amendment. By carefully refining both the visual presentation of the pattern and the clarity of the goods description, brand owners can substantially improve their chances of securing trademark protection for non-traditional marks such as patterns in Thailand.

When filing a pattern mark in Thailand, submit clear representations, boundary definitions, and usage examples to strengthen the application’s chances of acceptance.

Need help protecting non-traditional marks like patterns in Thailand?

Our team at IDG advises on pattern distinctiveness strategies, goods description amendments, and appeals before the Thai Trademark Board.

Contact us before your appeal deadline to secure your rights.