{"version":"1.0","provider_name":"Tilleke &amp; Gibbins","provider_url":"https:\/\/www.tilleke.com","author_name":"Joel Akins","author_url":"https:\/\/www.tilleke.com\/author\/joel\/","title":"Thai Court Finds Acquired Trademark Distinctiveness through Use in Rare Decision - Tilleke &amp; Gibbins","type":"rich","width":600,"height":338,"html":"<blockquote class=\"wp-embedded-content\" data-secret=\"hhLju23zzu\"><a href=\"https:\/\/www.tilleke.com\/insights\/thai-court-finds-acquired-trademark-distinctiveness-through-use-in-rare-decision\">Thai Court Finds Acquired Trademark Distinctiveness through Use in Rare Decision<\/a><\/blockquote><iframe sandbox=\"allow-scripts\" security=\"restricted\" src=\"https:\/\/www.tilleke.com\/insights\/thai-court-finds-acquired-trademark-distinctiveness-through-use-in-rare-decision\/embed\/#?secret=hhLju23zzu\" width=\"600\" height=\"338\" title=\"&#8220;Thai Court Finds Acquired Trademark Distinctiveness through Use in Rare Decision&#8221; &#8212; Tilleke &amp; Gibbins\" data-secret=\"hhLju23zzu\" frameborder=\"0\" marginwidth=\"0\" marginheight=\"0\" scrolling=\"no\" class=\"wp-embedded-content\"><\/iframe><script type=\"text\/javascript\">\n\/* <![CDATA[ *\/\n\/*! This file is auto-generated *\/\n!function(d,l){\"use strict\";l.querySelector&&d.addEventListener&&\"undefined\"!=typeof URL&&(d.wp=d.wp||{},d.wp.receiveEmbedMessage||(d.wp.receiveEmbedMessage=function(e){var t=e.data;if((t||t.secret||t.message||t.value)&&!\/[^a-zA-Z0-9]\/.test(t.secret)){for(var s,r,n,a=l.querySelectorAll('iframe[data-secret=\"'+t.secret+'\"]'),o=l.querySelectorAll('blockquote[data-secret=\"'+t.secret+'\"]'),c=new RegExp(\"^https?:$\",\"i\"),i=0;i<o.length;i++)o[i].style.display=\"none\";for(i=0;i<a.length;i++)s=a[i],e.source===s.contentWindow&&(s.removeAttribute(\"style\"),\"height\"===t.message?(1e3<(r=parseInt(t.value,10))?r=1e3:~~r<200&&(r=200),s.height=r):\"link\"===t.message&&(r=new URL(s.getAttribute(\"src\")),n=new URL(t.value),c.test(n.protocol))&&n.host===r.host&&l.activeElement===s&&(d.top.location.href=t.value))}},d.addEventListener(\"message\",d.wp.receiveEmbedMessage,!1),l.addEventListener(\"DOMContentLoaded\",function(){for(var e,t,s=l.querySelectorAll(\"iframe.wp-embedded-content\"),r=0;r<s.length;r++)(t=(e=s[r]).getAttribute(\"data-secret\"))||(t=Math.random().toString(36).substring(2,12),e.src+=\"#?secret=\"+t,e.setAttribute(\"data-secret\",t)),e.contentWindow.postMessage({message:\"ready\",secret:t},\"*\")},!1)))}(window,document);\n\/* ]]> *\/\n<\/script>\n","description":"Distinctiveness is a fundamental requirement for a trademark\u2019s registration and protection under Thai law. The Thai courts typically assess distinctiveness based on a mark\u2019s inherent characteristics rather than its use, as proving acquired distinctiveness through use requires substantial evidence, including the duration of use, extent of distribution and promotional efforts. However, the Intellectual Property and International Trade Court (IP &amp; IT Court) has recently ruled that the figurative mark WEPLAY had acquired distinctiveness through use \u2013 an uncommon ruling under Thai trademark law. Subsequently, the Court of Appeal for Specialised Cases affirmed the mark\u2019s inherent distinctiveness based on a holistic assessment of its components. This article discusses the criteria for proving both inherent and acquired distinctiveness, offering examples from both courts to provide valuable insights into case preparation and understanding of how the courts assess distinctiveness. Background In 2017 the plaintiff filed a trademark application for the mark depicted below","thumbnail_url":"https:\/\/www.tilleke.com\/wp-content\/uploads\/2025\/07\/Weplay-trademark.jpg"}