Works of applied art are a form of an artistic creation with utilitarian function or incorporate in an useful article. Since works of applied art intend to induce art appreciation and add the economic value to an article, the authors also gain great commercial benefit from such works. However, protection of works of applied art under Thai law is ambiguous and there are some problems concerning the overlapping and concurrent among various intellectual property legislations. This causes a loophole, as a result, inappropriation commercial exploitation of such works does occur. This research is conducted to study laws relating protection of works of applied art of the United States of America, the United Kingdom, Republic of the Philippines and Thailand. Its purpose is to examine and analyze legal problems on protection of works of applied art in order to find the appropriate patterns for providing legal protection of works of applied art for Thailand. In addition, interviews of authors, officers of the Department of Intellectual Property and a judge of the intellectual property section of the supreme court who closely pertain to works of applied art protection are also included in this research. It is found that the definition of works of applied art under the Copyright Act of B.E.2537 is unclear. In order to get protection under the Act, works of applied art requires 1) to be an article showing enough level of originality 2) to be utilization from artistic works and 3) appearance of article shall not dictated by functional considerations. To achieve a clear understanding that woks of applied art are not necessarily required to be originated from artistic works. It is, then, suggested that the definition of works of applied art under the Copyright Act of B.E.2537 should be amended. It should include and apply to an artistic creation with utilitarian function or incorporate in an useful article apart from the appreciation in the merit of the work such as for practical use of such work, decorating articles or appliances or using for commercial benefit. Furthermore, to remove the overlapping among various intellectual property provisions which leads to concurrent protection, it is suggested that works of applied art should be limited to claim protection merely only to any single field of the intellectual property law. Whereby amendments of the Copyright Act of B.E.2537, the Patent Act of B.E.2522 and the Trademark Act of B.E.2534 are suggested to require using a certain number of production to distinguish works of applied art from industrial designs under the patent law and trademarks under the trademark law. Moreover, the provision that entitles right holders to choose any appropriate intellectual property provisions to protect their works is needed. Whenever, work of applied art is chosen to enjoy protection under a specific field of intellectual property; it is no longer entitle to get protection under the other ones.
