We use cookies to give you the best online experience. By using our website you agree to our use of cookies in accordance with our cookie policy. Learn more here.Close Me
The Thai Trade Mark Office has very precise requirements in
relation to specifications of goods/services. Applications for
registration in relation to all goods, or even to a broad category
of goods, in a particular class, will not be accepted. Applicants
must be very specific as to the goods in relation to which they
seek registration.
To avoid the additional costs and delays that will inevitably
result from filing an unacceptable specification of goods and
services, and to ensure that you have an accurate estimate of costs
at the outset, it is advisable to consult a local practitioner.
If the goods or services have not been specified sufficiently
precisely, the application will be rejected unless amended
– resulting in inevitable delays. By way of example, an
application for registration in relation to cosmetics in Class 3
would be rejected. The applicant would be required to specify more
precisely the type of cosmetics in relation to which registration
was being sought e.g. cosmetics for use on cheeks, cosmetics for
use around the eyes, cosmetics for use on lips, cosmetics for use
on the neck, etc.
Failure to specify good or services accurately at the outset
will make it difficult to estimate with any degree of accuracy the
likely cost of registration. Apart from the costs involved in
amending applications, the official filing and registration fees
will vary depending on the number of goods/services specified in
the application: filing fees are approximately US$27, and
registration fees approximately US$10, per item. Whereas combined
application and registration fees for application and registration
in relation of cosmetics would be US$27, the combined fees would be
US$108 if the application were amended to include cosmetics for
cheeks, cosmetics for eyes, cosmetics for lips, and cosmetics for
neck.
The content of this article is intended to provide a general
guide to the subject matter. Specialist advice should be sought
about your specific circumstances.
To print this article, all you need is to be registered on Mondaq.com.
Click to Login as an existing user or Register so you can print this article.
By its judgment dated March 15, 2013, the Madras High Court ("the Court") held
that the amendment made in the year 2005 ("2005 Amendment") to section 126 of the
Patents Act, 1970 ("the Act") pertaining to the qualifications for registration as patent agents is unconstitutional.
The practice of parallel importing is a hot topic in Australia at the moment.
Some comments from our readers… “The articles are extremely timely and highly applicable” “I often find critical information not available elsewhere” “As in-house counsel, Mondaq’s service is of great value”
