Thai dessert shop apologises for causing online uproar over patenting of ‘Pang Cha’

Thai social media was buzzing when Lukkaithong Thai Royal Restaurant announced on its Facebook page on Monday that it has patented the words “Pang Cha” both in Thai and English and reserved the copyright.

The announcement used a photo of its popular Thai-style shaved ice or “Bingsu” dessert with pieces of bread soaked in Thai tea topped with cream and mint leaves as an illustration.

Many Facebook users responded angrily asking why the Intellectual Property Department had allowed the patenting of a common Thai dessert and how other dessert shops could serve a similar dish without getting into trouble.

The outcry eventually prompted the department, the shop and an intellectual property law expert to explain that the announcement had been misunderstood.

They said the misunderstanding stemmed from the fact that the trademark comprised two common Thai words – “pang” for bread and “cha” for tea.

The expert, Dr Peerapat “Pete” Foithong, said he believes “Pang Cha” may have been registered as a trademark, but that does not mean people will not be able to serve similar desserts. He also believes the copyright was registered for the images used for bottled tea sold by the shop, and the way the dessert is arranged may have been patented.

Hence, Peerapat said, other shops can sell this Thai-style Bingsu with bread and tea as ingredients without any legal trouble.

On Tuesday, the Pang Cha World Class Thai Tea Facebook page announced that the shop wanted to apologise for the misunderstanding caused.

In a heated debate, many Facebook users said common words and common dishes cannot be patented.

The department explained that a trademark is used to specify goods or services that are different from others.

According to the 1991 Trademark Act, characters, numerals, paintings, photos, illustrations, colours and symbols can be used to register new trademarks. Words made into phrases, sentences, slogans or titles can also be registered as trademarks.

Peerapat said the word “cha” alone cannot be registered as a trademark, but the shop used a combination of “Pang Cha” to register. However, he said, the trademark owner must forfeit the right to prohibit the use of “pang” and “cha” as common words.

“For instance, another seller can advertise his dessert as ‘Pang Bingsu Cha Thai Yen’ [Bingsu with bread and iced Thai tea],” Peerapat explained.

The department said the patent registered to the shop covers:

• Special font used for the words “Pang Cha”

• The word “Pang Cha” written in a signature style

• The image of a woman sitting/kneeling, that is printed on the shop’s tea bottles

• Image of a woman in a kimono, a Thai traditional costume and a traditional Indian saree

• Thai characters or numerals designed using plants

• The way the dessert is arranged in a bowl.

Peerapat explained that Thai law does not allow the registering of recipes, adding that the best way to protect a recipe is to keep it secret.

“If people come to a restaurant and memorise the taste of a dish and then try to recreate it, it is not illegal. If a restaurant wants to protect its recipes, it must keep them secret,” he said.

He added that the Intellectual Property Department would not allow the registration of general words or phrases as trademarks.

“For example, the words ‘rao khai khanom pang’ [we sell bread], or ‘pang aroi’ [delicious bread] or ‘pang ping’ [toasted bread] cannot be registered as trademarks,” Peerapat added.

In 2021, there was a high-profile legal battle over trademarks between a well-known Thai teashop Sua Phon Fai (tiger roaring at a fire) and its new rival, Mee Phon Fai (bear roaring at fire).

The Intellectual Property Court ruled in favour of Sua Phon Fai, which had registered its name as a trademark in both Thai and English.

The court ruled that Mee Phon Fai had imitated Sua Phon Fai's trademark by changing just one word. It also accused the new shop of selling the same type of bubble tea as the old shop – causing misunderstanding among the public that the two shops might be owned by the same person.

The court ordered the new shop to stop using the name and images, as well as pay a compensation of 10 million baht to the old shop.