The Area of Trademark Protection : a Case Study of Pattern Marks, Motion Marks and Position Marks

Abstract

In this article, the researcher examines the scope of providing protection for trademarks in the Kingdom of Thailand (Thailand) by reference to the Trademark Act, B.E. 2534 (1991) in respect to whether or not to extend protection to pattern, motion, and position marks. The researcher also investigates violation of the rights to such marks by reference to the Criminal Code on offences related to trade, the Civil and Commercial Code, and the Copyright Act, B.E. 2537 (1994). The researcher additionally presents guidelines for solving problems related to the protection of pattern, motion, and position marks in the future.

Findings are as follows: Provisions of the Trademark Act, B.E. 2534 (1991) fail to cover pattern, motion and position marks. Moreover, the protection of “marks” in other laws does not match the intent to protect trademarks. Accordingly, the researcher would like to offer guidelines for solving problems regarding the scope of protection. An addition should be made to the definition of “marks” in Section 4 of the Trademark Act, B.E. 2534 (1991) such that appropriate provision governing specific characteristics of trademarks are framed apropos pattern, motion, and position marks. If this guideline is carried out, the law would then be in consonance with progress in business. This would also ensure trademark owners could be confident that they and those who have been granted permission to use their trademarks are the only persons who can legally exercise the right to use said trademarks. They would also be in a position whereby they could file law suits against those violating their trademarks in Thailand.