Short Answer
No. A missed deadline can lead to abandonment, but a past deadline shown in a report is not the same thing as an officially confirmed disposal of the earlier application.
Under Thailand’s current Trademark Act, orders under sections 15 and 17 generally require compliance within 90 days of receipt. Section 18 gives 90 days from receipt to appeal specified registrar orders. Section 19 provides that where the applicant neither appeals nor complies, the application is deemed abandoned.
Before filing, confirm the earlier application’s official status in the Department of Intellectual Property record.
Do not convert:
“the deadline appears to have passed”
into:
“the earlier application no longer exists.”
Why This Matters
Trademark clearance is often a snapshot. A search may show an earlier application, a registrar order and a response date that has passed.
Management asks:
“Can we file now because they missed the deadline?”
The answer may ultimately be yes, but databases and internal reports do not always update at the same time as the procedural event. Obtain the official status before relying on the missed date.
Typical Scenario
A restaurant business wants to file a new Thai trademark.
The clearance search finds a similar earlier application.
The file history shows that the registrar issued an order requiring action, and the stated response period appears to have expired without a visible response.
The business asks:
“Is the path clear now?”
Potentially—but only after checking the earlier application’s legal status and other conflicting rights.
Practical Analysis
01Identify the type of registrar order.
Different provisions have different effects.
Sections 15 and 17 cover correction requirements and disclaimer/limitation orders. The order matters because section 19 links abandonment to non-compliance.
02Use the current deadline, not an old template.
The current DIP-published text of the Trademark Act provides 90-day periods in sections 15, 17 and 18 for the relevant compliance or appeal steps.
Older manuals may still refer to 60 days under earlier law. Use the current statute, not an inherited deadline.
03Understand what section 19 does.
If the applicant does not appeal under section 18 and does not comply with an order under section 15 or 17, section 19 deems the application abandoned.
It also addresses failure to comply after an unsuccessful appeal. A genuinely missed statutory deadline can therefore have substantive effect.
04Still confirm the official file position.
Retrieve the current DIP record and, where material, the registrar’s disposal status.
DIP appeal decisions include applications treated as abandoned under section 19 and removed after the applicant failed to act within the statutory period. That official history is stronger than inference from an old deadline.
05Do not stop the clearance exercise at one earlier application.
Even if that obstacle is abandoned, rerun the search.
Recheck registered Thai marks, pending applications, similar marks for relevant goods/services, international registrations designating Thailand and later filings.
Removing one obstacle does not clear the new mark.
06Separate filing risk from use risk.
A fileable mark can still create infringement or commercial risk from other rights. Record both the earlier application’s procedural status and the wider clearance result.
07Preserve the evidence used for the decision.
Save the search date, application number, order, statutory deadline and official status.
Future reviewers should see what status evidence supported the filing decision.
What We Usually Look At
We review the DIP record, registrar order, receipt date where available, response or appeal, section 19 status, current search results, relevant goods/services, similar registered and pending marks, Madrid designations and the proposed mark.
Common Traps
Typical mistakes are using an old 60-day rule, assuming a past calendar date proves abandonment, relying on an internal status note instead of the current DIP file, checking only the word element and failing to rerun the search after the earlier application disappears.
Practical Next Step
Build a short status chain:
earlier application → registrar order → receipt date → current statutory deadline → response/appeal? → section 19 consequence → official DIP status → refreshed clearance search → filing decision
Do not mark the obstacle “cleared” until the last two steps are complete.
Legal Sources
- Trademark Act B.E. 2534 (1991), as amended, sections 13, 15, 17, 18, 19 and 20.
- Department of Intellectual Property, current published consolidated Trademark Act text, which reflects the 90-day periods in sections 15, 17 and 18.
- Department of Intellectual Property trademark examination manual and domestic trademark forms/guidance.
- Department of Intellectual Property Trademark Board Appeal Decision (2021 compilation) recording an application removed after failure to comply or appeal within the statutory period under section 19.
- Department of Intellectual Property Trademark Board Appeal Decision (2021 compilation) confirming that an earlier application treated as abandoned and removed under section 19 no longer required a similarity determination in that proceeding.
General legal information only. Please seek advice on your specific facts. Laws and regulatory practice may change.