Supreme Court Opinion No. 4145/2005
Boonyun Sunthorrawat vs. Umpai Treesuwom

Re: Signatory Authority (Fingerprint)

Although the finger-print of the plaintiff on the Power of Attorney did not show the pattern of a finger, there was a description underneath the marking in ink that identified it as the finger-print of a person. This is evidence that it is a finger-print and not an ink smudge. According to Paragraph 2, Section 9 of the P.P.P., a fingerprint on paper accompanied by two signatures of witnesses is a recognized signature. Furthermore the witnesses testified on behalf of the plaintiff that the ink marking was made by the plaintiff's right thumb, a statement that could verified due to the particular nature of human fingerprints. Therefore the finger-print on the Power of Attorney was legitimate.

Supreme Court Opinion 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 a 0

part from the defendant because they could not live together as husband and wife during their 3 year marriage. The plaintiff therefore has the right to file for divorce.

Supreme Court Opinion No. 5168/2005
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.

Supreme Court Opinion 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 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 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.

Supreme Court Opinion 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 registered a trade-mark 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.

Supreme Court Opinion No. 4464/2548
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 company 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.

Supreme Court Opinion No. 7062/2548
Jidorn Thongon vs. Sing/Kumsing Doksutud

Re: Loan Contract

Supreme Court Opinion 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.