Thailand Law Forum Thailand Law Forum  
 
Feature Articles :

History of Cannabis
  and Anti-Marijuana
  Laws in Thailand



Thailand’s Notable
  Criminal Extradition
  Cases


Guide for Tourists
  to Laws in Thailand



Neither Free nor Fair:
  Burma’s Sham Elections



Sex Laws in Thailand:
  Part 1



Renewable Energy
  in Thailand



Transsexuals and
  Thai Law



Foreign Mafia in
  Thailand


 

Supreme Court Opinion Summaries (8/2550)

 
Note concerning Thailand Supreme court opinions: Thailand is a civil law jurisdiction that also has elements of the common law system. Accordingly, the principle law sources are acts, statutes and regulations. However, published Supreme court decisions are an important part of the legal development of Thailand and are frequently used as a secondary authority. (Summaries sponsored by Chaninat & Leeds)

 

8/2550 Thailand Supreme Court Opinion 1 (No. 1106) 2007
Mr. Pisun Panichasombat vs. Mrs. Chutima Panichasombat

Re:
Duties of husband and wife, maintenance, child support, divorce, father, mother, parents, parental power, custody

In her counterclaim, the defendant (wife) made request for the court to order the plaintiff (husband) to provide maintenance to the defendant and to their minor children in the event the court grants a Thailand divorce. However, the defendant has contended from the beginning of the proceeding that her actions in the marriage were not an inducement for the divorce proceeding, but the reason for the court action was that the plaintiff left their home and abandoned the family and, after leaving, had not paid maintenance her or to their two children who were still in school. The defendant also requested that the Court grant her sole custody of the children.

The Court's review of the legal proceeding indicates that the defendant had no intention to divorce the plaintiff.  On the other hand, the defendant emphasized that the plaintiff had not conducted himself according to paragraph 1, section 1564 of the Civil and Commercial Code, which requires that parents provide financial support and appropriate educational opportunities to their minor children, and that the plaintiff, as father, is responsible for abiding by the provisions as stated, regardless of whether the plaintiff and defendant are husband and wife or divorced from each other. Therefore, the court's granting sole custody of the children to the defendant is deemed appropriate according to section 1566 (5) of the Civil and Commercial Code, regardless of whether the plaintiff and defendant are divorced from each other or not.

Because the plaintiff has not provided maintenance support and educational opportunities to the children, District 6, Appellate Court, Department of Youth and Family Cases has ordered the plaintiff to pay child support for the 2 minor children and has decreed that the defendant be given sole custody of the 2 children. This judgment does not exceed the request.

The defendant gave testimony and contended at the beginning that the plaintiff, as husband, had not provided support to the defendant, as wife, and was not fulfilling his obligations as husband according to paragraph 2, section 1461 of the Civil and Commercial Code. The defendant's testimony pointed to the plaintiff's sole reprehensibility for the divorce proceeding and the fact that the divorce proceeding of the plaintiff has made the defendant poorer. The defendant requested the court to order the plaintiff to pay maintenance to the defendant on a monthly basis in the event the court grants a divorce. Furthermore, the principles of maintenance payments, based on section 1526 of the Civil and Commercial Code, stipulate that maintenance payment be made after the divorce is granted because a party to the divorce becomes poorer as a result of the divorce. The Court cannot order the plaintiff to pay maintenance to the defendant as requested when the lower courts have not granted a divorce to the parties.

 

 

8/2550 Thailand Supreme Court Opinion 1 (No. 1106) 2007
Creation Center Company Limited vs. Mr. Piroon Singhsuksawad et al.

Re:
Copyright

The plaintiff was the owner of a Thailand copyright related to information for the design, creation, assembly, and installation of a water filter system and chemicals for water purification. The Thailand copyright comprised information regarding the plaintiff's company, the product, and a system of numbers indicating the level of efficiency of the product, with accompanying product photos.

The plaintiff was the sole designer of the product. He used his knowledge, capabilities, assiduity, and experience in this field of business to design the product which was efficient, effective and according to the needs of clients.

The plaintiff has not copied others. He published the information on his own website and printed the document in book format in English, including a catalogue, a brochure, description of the company's history, and details explaining the product, with accompanying photos.

The plaintiff is therefore owner of the copyrighted information, considered a literary work, regardless of whether the work was of good quality or not, had artistic value in terms of language use, or had readers peruse the information or not. The work is deemed a copyrighted work because the work was created solely by the plaintiff. The work provided information for the design, creation, assembly, and installation of a water filter system and chemicals for water purification, with accompanying photos on the plaintiff's website, and is a copyrighted work according to section 4 and section 6, paragraph 1, of the Copyright Act.

The three defendants violated the copyrighted literary work of the plaintiff repeatedly, altered the information, photos on the website, and the product advertisements. The repeated violations were not related to alterations of a computer program work, but were violations related to water filter systems, which was a literary work, and thus different from a computer program work.

The three defendants therefore violated section 27 and section 31 of the Copyright Act when they used the information regarding the plaintiff's water filter system to produce their own water filter product publication for dissemination to their clients.  However, the defendants did not violate section 30 for computer program works.
 

 

8/2550 Thailand Supreme Court Opinion123(No.5219) 2007
Mr. Chawana Kietchawanasaewee vs. Kata Anglothai Association Company Limited

Re:
Trademark

The defendant was permitted to use the service trademark "The Hide Away" with a photo of a child leaning against a lemon from Hide Away Group Company Limited for a period of 5 years, counting from the date the agreement was entered into on 16 June 2541 B.E. (1998 A.D.).

The plaintiff received ownership of the Thailand service trademark from Hide Away Group Company Limited on 20 May 2545 (2002 A.D.) and instituted criminal proceedings against the defendant on 16 January 2546 (2003 (A.D.). Consequently, the agreement between the defendant and Hide Away Group Company Limited was still binding during this period.

Although the agreement between the defendant and was void because the trademark was not registered in the presence of the Trademark Registrar, according to paragraph 2, section 68, and section 80 of the Trademark Act, the contents of the agreement permitted the defendant to use specific information. This information focused on muscle relaxation and breathing techniques under the service trademark and the trademark name "The Hide Away Thai Herbal Steam Sauna," comprising the products of Hide Away Group Company Limited. As a result of the agreement entered into by the two parties, the defendant understood, and honestly believed, that he was permitted to use the service trademark and the trademark name.

On top of this, after Hide Away Group Company Limited transferred the service trademark to Hide Away Natural Products Company Limited, the defendant and Hide Away Natural Products Company Limited both abided by the agreement authorizing use of the trademark. Therefore, the defendant’s advertisements, through use of signs displaying the plaintiff’s service trademark, was not an intentional infringement or negligence because its use was during the time period prior to the plaintiff’s petition and when the contract between the defendant and Hide Away Group Company Limited was still binding. Although the action caused damage to the plaintiff, as owner of the trademark, the defendant has not violated the service trademark of the plaintiff by his advertising and sales.

 

 

 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
     

Chaninat & Leeds offered support in translating Supreme Court case law. Chaninat & Leeds is a Thailand Law Firm practicing family and business law. Chaninat & Leeds specializes in Thailand criminal defense lawyer. Chaninat & Leeds is managed by an American attorney who specializes in immigration with a focus on family visas including prenuptial agreement Thailand. For any submissions, comments, or questions, e-mail the Thailand Law Forum at: info@fourladiesforum.com Please read our Disclaimer.

 

© Copyright Thailand Law Forum, All Rights Reserved
(except where the work is the individual works of the authors as noted)