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

May 21, 2013

Plant Variety Protection: New Announcement Impacts IP Rights and Profit Sharing

Informed Counsel

In Thailand, the Plant Varieties Protection Act B.E. 2542 (1999) provides protection for plant varieties that possess novelty, stability, uniformity, and distinctiveness. Once protected, the rights holder of a new plant variety has the sole right to produce, sell, distribute, import, export, or possess the plant for any of these purposes.

Section 52 of the Plant Varieties Protection Act stipulates that a person who collects, procures, and gathers wild plant varieties and general domestic plant varieties for the purpose of developing new varieties, education, research, and studies for commercial interests may do so with a valid permit granted by the Department of Agriculture (DOA). The permit holder (known as the “grantee”) must also enter into a profit-sharing agreement with the DOA (the grantor), which requires that any monetary gains from the commercial exploitation of such plant variety(ies) be shared with the DOA.

Although the Plant Varieties Protection Act took effect in 1999, the DOA only issued an “Announcement Regarding Forms for Application for Permission and Profit-Sharing Agreement under Section 52” (the Announcement) on January 29, 2013. This article will provide an overview of the key provisions of the Announcement as they relate to intellectual property rights and the profit-sharing scheme.

Intellectual Property Rights

The Announcement clearly sets out that the grantee does not have any intellectual property right or other rights to the plant varieties and/or parts thereof covered by the permit. The grantee is, however, allowed to use the plant varieties that are collected, procured, or gathered or the results from the developments, studies, and research for commercial purposes.

If these activities result in new creations, the grantee is entitled to seek intellectual property protection for the resulting products or innovations. In doing so, the grantee must inform the DOA of any intellectual property rights filings. If the grantee decides not to apply for IP protection, it must notify the DOA, and the DOA will have a right of first refusal as to whether it wishes to apply for the IP protection on the creations/innovations, and to negotiate with the grantee as to whether the rights in the creations/innovations will be assigned to the DOA, with or without consideration. If the DOA declines to acquire such right or the negotiation fails, the grantee can then assign its right to a third party. Any considerations received from the assignment are considered as use for commercial purpose, and hence the grantee is obligated to share the profits with the DOA.

Profit Sharing

If the grantee uses the plant varieties and/or parts thereof that are collected, procured, or gathered or that result from the developments, studies, and research for commercial purposes, the grantee must share the profits from these activities with the DOA. The profits can be shared in the form of property, technological advances, technology transfer, personnel development, or any other types of profits. This will be determined according to the approved profit-sharing proposal based on net sales or proceeds from the services resulting from such commercial use.

If the grantee allows or authorizes a third party to manufacture, use, or yield any profits from the products developed employing the protected IP rights acquired through use or development of the plant varieties, the grantee needs to inform the DOA and share the profits from this arrangement. The duty to share the benefit continues for as long as the grantee obtains the commercial benefits, but no longer that the period of IP protection.

If the grantee acts as an agent for another person, the profits will be calculated from the profits obtained by the principal. However, the grantee is obligated to share these profits with the DOA as if the profits were obtained by the grantee.

Implications for Grantees

If you are a grantee, what does the Announcement mean for you? Neither the Plant Varieties Protection Act nor the Announcement provides a specific definition of “profit,” but it appears to include:

  • Consideration received in exchange for an assignment or authorization for other parties to use the IP.
  • Net sales of products developed employing the protected IP rights acquired through use or development of the plant varieties.

As a grantee, you are obligated to share any such profits with the DOA. Regardless of whether you commercially exploit the IP right yourself or assign it to others, you continue to have the duty to share the profit.

The Announcement holds that you can share profits as property, technological advances, technology transfer, personnel development, or any other types of profits, but it lacks guidelines on the rate and amount to be shared. It is uncertain whether you can negotiate the profit sharing or whether the DOA will impose a specific rate and amount.

Further, the Announcement stipulates that your duty to share the benefit continues for as long as you enjoy such commercial benefits, but no longer than the period of IP protection. While this appears to be a very straightforward statement, in reality it could be difficult to reduce into practice. For example, if you will share the profits in the form of technology transfer or personnel development, how can you quantify the appropriate amount of consideration for profit-sharing purposes?

This lack of clarity regarding how profits will be shared, combined with the requirement to approve a profit-sharing scheme at an early stage of the process, may discourage investment in research and studies on plant varieties. Innovators will therefore need to closely monitor for further guidelines or directions on how these procedures will be implemented in practice, so that they can be assured that their research investments will be worthwhile.

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