11/2548 Thailand Supreme Court Opinion 115 (No. 6580) 2005
T.C. Pharmaceutical Industrial vs. Vinai Kongkiatepaiboon

Re: Trademark

The word “sponsor” means support in the English language, therefore it is a natural word and not a word that was created. As for the word “sponsor” in the Thai, it was spelled in the Thai alphabet according to the pronunciation of the English word “sponsor”. The plaintiff register a trademark under the words "sponsor" and “sponsor” (in Thai) in 1983. Products and commercials have been made under this trademark, but they were not successful. The plaintiff registered the trade-mark to produce mineral and other types of drinks, which are products under Category 42. The defendant, however, requested to register a trademark for flip flops under Category 25. Although the defendant and the plaintiff use the same trademark, they are creating different products; therefore the plaintiff can not sue the defendant.

11/2548 Thailand Supreme Court Opinion 32 (No. 4464) 2005
Managing Capital Sukhumvit Company vs. United Grand Company

Re: Loan Contract

In a previous court case, the defendant was charged with breaching a loan contract with the plaintiff and was forced to mortgage. The defendant counterclaimed that a bank had breached their contract with the defendant therefore causing the Thailand company registration Kor to be unable to manufacture products and pay of their debt. The counterclaim of the defendant, however, was not related to the claim and therefore could not be considered in court.

11/2548 Thailand Supreme Court Opinion 140 (No. 7062) 2005
Jidorn Thongon vs. Sing/Kumsing Doksutud

Re: Loan Contract

OR took out a loan from the Bor Agriculture Cooperation in the amount of 500,000 baht on behalf of the plaintiff and used the Thailand land of the plaintiff as collateral. OR borrowed money on behalf of the plaintiff because the plaintiff was not a member of the Agriculture Cooperation and could not borrow the money himself. OR received money in the amount of 431,928 baht after deducting debt and share. The plaintiff alleges that OR gave money to the defendant for the plaintiff, but that the plaintiff never received the money. However as OR was the principle debtor who signed the loan agreement and the loan was not taken out in the name of the plaintiff and the plaintiff did not formerly engage the defendant as an agent to receive money on his behalf, the plaintiff has no claim against the defendant. If OR wished to give money to the defendant for giving to the plaintiff, then this is an issue between the defendant an OR. The plaintiff can not sue the defendant in this case.

11/2548 Thailand Supreme Court Opinion 115 (No. 7386) 2005
Veerachai Narkwatchara vs. Yupa Rutthanasanghirun

Re: Rental Contract

The plaintiff agreed verbally to allow the defendant to continue to rent a building after the rental term in their written contract had elapsed. However the new agreement was not written in the old contract. Although the plaintiff consented to their new agreement before the old contract ended and created a new contract, the consent was not given as a written contract therefore the defendant can not force the plaintiff to allow her to continue to rent the building. Therefore the plaintiff had the right to evict the tenant after their written contract had ended.