9/2548 Thailand Supreme Court Opinion 202 (No. 6471) 2005
Porntip v. Panomprai Katesa

Re: Divorce

While the defendant and the plaintiff were separated, the plaintiff accused the defendant of having an affair. The plaintiff claimed the affair caused her severe humiliation and demonstrated that the defendant did not wish to live together as husband and wife because he inflicted a great deal of pain on his family. Throughout their four years of separation, the defendant also failed to provide expenses to the plaintiff and did not return to live with the plaintiff. It is clear that the plaintiff agreed to live apart from the defendant because they could not live together as husband and wife during their 3 year the Thailand marriage. The plaintiff therefore has the right to file for the Thailand divorce.

9/2548 Thailand Supreme Court Opinion 96 (No. 202) 2005
Rolex A.S. Company vs. Nuntana Pitisaithakorn

Re: Trademarks

The trade-mark “Rolex” is a very popular brand as Rolex A.S. Company is capable of creating quality watches. As a result of the popularity of the "Rolex" brand there are persons who sought to benefit from the brand name “Rolex” without requesting authorization. Although some companies used a trademark similar to the "Rolex" trademark, the trademark of these companies was not similar enough to confuse the customers.

The defendant, the managing director of Solex International company, did register her trade-mark under a name different from "Rolex". Her products are not watches, but jewelry made from expensive metal or bronze. She did not have the intention to violate the trademark law or make her customers confuse her brand with the Rolex company. Although the defendant wishes to produce and sell a watch under the name “Solex”, there is no evidence that customers will confuse this brand with “Rolex” as they know that “Solex” is a trade-mark of a key company. Therefore the defendant can register a trademark under the name “Solex” without being in violation of any laws.

9/2548 Thailand Supreme Court Opinion 141 (No. 5492) 2005
Saya and Kanong Kumnarai vs. Prasert Mabundit

Re: Sale-Purchase Agreements; Co-Ownership

The defendants and the plaintiff were entitled to a piece of the Thailand land. The land was divided and owners of sections were designated. The defendants and the plaintiffs had the right to their section of land because they were entitled to the land title deed. When the plaintiff made a sale contract with the defendants for the sale of the northern section of the land it would be complete only when all the co-owners signed the agreement. If the defendant sold the Thailand leased property to the plaintiff without the consent of the co-owners then it would not be binding. Because the land title deed was owned by multiple persons, everyone had the right to every part of their land. Therefore it was impossible for the plaintiff to divide the land for the defendants and himself.