You are using an outdated browser and your browsing experience will not be optimal. Please update to the latest version of Microsoft Edge, Google Chrome or Mozilla Firefox. Install Microsoft Edge

April 19, 2013

Health and Safety and IP Must Go Hand in Hand

Bangkok Post, Corporate Counsellor Column

No one in their right mind would buy counterfeit medicines, chemicals, or car parts, yet there is a dark trade in these dangerous items in Asia—and it is on the increase. A recent case in March, as reported by the Bangkok Post, is a clear example of what must be tackled: “Thailand’s food chain and livestock industry faces a risk from imports of counterfeit glutaraldehyde, an organic compound used in disinfecting poultry and swine facilities” where up to 50% of the products found were fake.

Alarming reports are also coming from border areas with Cambodia, where the incidence of fake malaria drugs is skyrocketing. When consumers unknowingly use such fakes, malaria thrives.

To counter these trends, vigilance and suppression of counterfeit products among consumers, distribution channels, and government officials is now more important than ever.

Patent Protection

The authorities have a variety of legal grounds on which to prevent such trade. Key among these are intellectual property (IP) laws. In many cases, fake medicines and chemicals are transported unbranded out of China and into Vietnam, Cambodia, and Thailand. This means that the laws preventing unauthorized use of trademarks cannot be relied on (as is usually the case when it comes to counterfeits of, say, designer handbags or clothing). Authorities and rights holders must therefore look to patent law to try to enforce their rights to stop these dangerous goods from entering the market.

Patent rights cover the actual invention, such as the molecule or the process by which a pharmaceutical or chemical has been made. Such patents are granted by governments to the inventors on the basis that they improve the product or process over what has gone before it (referred to as “the prior art”).

Of course, to be able to enforce these rights, a patent has to be accepted for registration by the relevant local patent office first. Yet many patent offices in Southeast Asia, Thailand included, face enormous delays in granting such patents. It can take more than 14 years to get such a patent in Thailand.

Given that the protection period is 20 years, this is a significant and unacceptable delay. The Thai Patent Office knows this is a problem and is investing time and money to improve its processes, including the introduction of Patent Examination Guidelines for its patent examiners.

Free Trade Talks

These examination delays—and the health and safety implications for consumers—are an issue that will surely be raised in the free trade agreement (FTA) talks that have recently begun between the European Union (EU) and Thailand. In terms of imported goods into Thailand, the EU stands third behind Japan and China, with these imports focusing heavily on machinery, transport equipment, pharmaceuticals, and medical equipment.

This existing large volume of trade has the potential to grow exponentially in the future, particularly with the increasingly free movement of goods, services, capital, and people in ASEAN from 2015 onward. Given the timing, this FTA could set Thailand up to be the major import hub for European goods and investment in ASEAN.

IP will feature prominently in the EU’s agenda. Only with a secure IP system can foreign direct investment reach its full potential. It is no secret that Thailand is one of the nations, along with China, that has not had a perfect track record when it comes to IP protection and enforcement.

The Department of Intellectual Property (DIP) has shown a strong commitment to improve the situation—for example, through the forthcoming Madrid Protocol accession enabling use of the international system of trademark registration, ex officio seizure of goods by the Customs Department, the growing number of raids by the DIP and police, and the increase in IP criminal matters being prosecuted at court.

But there remain several shortcomings in the IP system, and the EU may seek some commitments from Thailand to improve them. One of these areas is likely to be the process for granting patents for pharmaceuticals.

Quality Assurance for Medicines

Various NGOs have claimed that an FTA could have a negative effect on access to medicine in Thailand. In evaluating this claim, it is crucial to distinguish between the separate issues of patentability and access to medicine. We must also remember the crucial role that patent protection, along with other important IP rights, plays in preventing dangerous products from entering the market and the importance of empowering Customs officers and other officials to prevent distribution of such counterfeits.

Thai citizens need to be made aware that the patentability test actually ensures that only drugs that are genuinely new and inventive are awarded a monopoly. This complies with the global TRIPS (Trade Related Aspects of Intellectual Property Rights) regime and other IP treaties that Thailand has signed. This process actually improves the standard of healthcare by introducing better medicines for the Thai public. Companies that produce generally cheaper generic options are free to compete on products for which the patent has expired.

Pricing of drugs is always a debatable issue, but this is a matter of policy that may change according to the government’s position. Remember that Thailand ranks 24th in the world in terms of GDP. It is therefore by no means a poor nation or one that cannot afford to offer the best medicines to its citizens.

The issue of utmost importance is that Thailand puts in place rigorous patent protection and enforcement procedures, so that Thai citizens are assured that they have access to high-quality, genuine medicines.

RELATED INSIGHTS​ 

August 13, 2026
Modern agricultural machinery is no longer purely mechanical but instead technology dependent. Modern tractors, harvesters, and other farm equipment increasingly incorporate embedded software, electronic control units, sensors, and digital diagnostic systems. While such technologies enhance efficiency, productivity, and precision farming, they also affect the manner of equipment repair and maintenance. As a result, farmers and independent repair providers may have little practical choice but to rely on authorized dealers, even for routine maintenance and repairs. Section 36 of Thailand’s Patent Act reflects the principle that the authorized sale of a patented invention usually exhausts the exclusive right of the patent owner over the specific product. This means that upon legal sale of the patented product, it can typically be used or resold without further authorization from the patent holder. This principle is relatively straightforward when applied to traditional mechanical equipment. Ownership of a machine ordinarily carries with it the practical ability to diagnose faults, replace worn parts, and restore the equipment to working order. Modern agricultural machinery, however, increasingly depends on embedded software, proprietary diagnostic systems, firmware updates, and other digital resources that may remain under the control of the manufacturer or patent holder. This tension lies within the “right to repair” debate. In the United States, on July 8, 2026, the Federal Trade Commission and five states announced a settlement with Deere & Company resolving allegations that Deere had unlawfully restricted farmers’ and independent repair providers’ ability to repair their equipment. Under the terms of the settlement, for the next ten years, Deere must provide repair resources, including software capabilities, on terms equivalent to those provided to authorized dealers. The Deere settlement highlights that the nature of ownership is changing, but legal concepts have not kept pace. Traditional patent-law concepts, including patent exhaustion, were developed with physical products
August 10, 2026
Thailand has finalized its social media KYC (“know your customer”) rules under Notification of the Electronic Transactions Commission on Measures to Prevent Technological Crimes for Social Media Service Providers (No. 2), which was published in the Government Gazette on May 5, 2026, and will take effect on November 1, 2026. While an early draft of the notification proposed requiring social media platforms to arrange identification of every user account, the final notification is significantly more targeted, focusing on paid online advertising and advertiser identity verification. Though the regulatory initiative primarily aims to combat online fraud and technology-related crimes, it also has important consequences for intellectual property enforcement, because the verified platform records that will be generated under the new requirements can help IP rights holders to identify anonymous online infringers. Key Regulatory Mandates The notification requires social media service providers to verify the identity of advertisers before their paid advertisements are published and disseminated in Thailand through social media, regardless of whether the advertising fees come from the advertisers or third parties. Verification of an advertiser is valid for one year, after which verification would have to be performed again before the platform could publish additional paid advertisements from the advertiser. Permitted verification methods are specified under the notification. A platform may verify an advertiser by checking identity evidence and confirming the connection between the advertiser and that identity evidence, with the notification giving facial comparison against certain government-issued identity documents as an example. Alternatively, platforms may verify advertisers through a digital identity verification and authentication system with an identity-proofing assurance level not lower than the level prescribed by Thailand’s Electronic Transactions Commission. The notification further requires platforms to retain only the advertiser’s information necessary to identify the advertiser, beginning from the start of the advertising activity and for
August 6, 2026
Introduction: A Trademark Paradox in Sustainable Packaging Walk into any Thai supermarket, and the label-free water bottle is no longer a novelty. Thailand’s packaging market, valued at approximately USD 15.68 billion in 2025, is shifting toward minimalist, plastic-light designs as ESG pressures reshape how brands present their products. The country generated roughly 5.68 million tons of plastic waste in 2021, with a recycling rate of only 19 percent, and regulators are now considering rules that would allow label-free bottled water relying on embossing, laser printing, or QR codes instead of wrap-around labels. As packaging itself becomes the brand identifier, a paradox emerges: designs built to say the least often struggle hardest for protection under Thai intellectual property law. The Trademark Barrier: When Shape Is Not Enough Section 7, paragraph 2(10) of the Thai Trademark Act deems a shape distinctive only if it is not the natural form of the goods, is not necessary to achieve a technical result, and does not add value to the goods. The Department of Intellectual Property’s 2022 examination guidelines apply this test conservatively, as the following examples illustrate. A plain water bottle relying on subtle contours to signal its brand is typically read as just another bottle, not a source identifier. Acquired distinctiveness offers a theoretical escape route, but it demands extensive evidence of sales, advertising, and consumer recognition—an especially heavy burden for new entrants whose minimalist packaging has not yet achieved market prominence. The result is a structural bias against precisely the design innovation that sustainability goals are meant to encourage. Design Patents: A Partial, Imperfect Substitute Design patent protection, covering a product’s shape, configuration, or ornamentation, appears to offer an alternative route. In practice, it is constrained by the same forces driving the minimalist trend. Because many brands converge on similar solutions—clear
August 4, 2026
Intellectual property (IP) protection sometimes hinges on fame and recognition. However, this alone will not always be sufficient to overcome an IP dispute when it involves contractual obligations or registered rights. Below are five cases from around the world that tackle some of the basic issues in IP registration, ownership, commercialization, and enforcement. 1. USA: Taylor Swift Trademark Application Refused Taylor Swift recently filed a trademark application to register “The Life of a Showgirl,” which is the title of her 12th studio album. When examining a trademark application, the examiner considers various factors before deciding whether it should be registered. One of these factors is whether there is a likelihood of confusion (i.e., would a regular consumer mistake the origin of the trademark). In Taylor Swift’s case, the US Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO) decided that that there would be a risk of confusion. This decision was based on the existing registered trademark, “Confessions of a Showgirl,” owned by Maren Wade, which was registered in 2015. The USPTO refused Taylor Swift’s application based on the shared key distinctive element “of a showgirl,” the lack of sufficient distinguishing terms, the marks being used in overlapping markets (entertainment and performances), and because consumers may assume a common commercial source. Maren Wade then filed a lawsuit in California against Taylor Swift and her affiliated companies, arguing that Taylor Swfit’s branding is confusingly similar in structure, wording, and overall commercial impression to her registered mark. She is also drawing on the USPTO’s refusal of Taylor Swift’s application to support her argument of a likelihood of confusion. A judgment has not yet been reached in this case, but it serves as an important reminder of the importance of satisfying the essential elements required for IP registration. 2. Australia: Katy Perry v. Katie Perry In