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 17, 2015

Refilling Genuine Packaging with Unauthorized Products

Bangkok Post, Corporate Counsellor Column

Counterfeiters in Thailand often refill genuine packaging and containers with unauthorized products, thus passing off the goods as genuine commodities. This problem is widespread. Refilled goods don’t pass through regulatory standards or quality control and so they can have harmful effects on consumers.

In Thailand, refilled products generally fall into two categories:

  • products for consumption, such as fish sauce and liquor; and
  • commodities, such as shampoos, toner and ink cartridges, and lubricants.

One common practice involves refilling genuine liquor bottles with methanol instead of ethanol. Methanol, a non-drinkable type of industrial alcohol, is less expensive than ethanol but produces the same effect of intoxication. A consumer may be blinded—or perhaps even killed—if he or she consumes more than 60-250 milliliters of methanol. On November 9, 2009, more than 30 prisoners at Thanyaburi prison were admitted to hospital after consuming methanol. Four prisoners died as a result.

Refilled toner cartridges also pose a significant danger to consumers. The materials that constitute unauthorized toner powder in refilled cartridges are unknown to consumers and may contain harmful chemicals that can accumulate in the body and cause the onset of deadly diseases over long periods of time. For example, office staff who work in proximity to a printer that uses refilled toner cartridges may breathe in harmful fumes from the printer on a daily basis.

In Thailand, Section 272(1) of the Penal Code allows for legal action to be taken against an offender who commits an act of refilling that uses names, pictures, marks, or any terms used in other people’s business without the proper authorization. Violators face up to one year imprisonment and/or a fine of up to THB 2,000. The offense is compoundable, meaning that the legal action can be settled between the parties.

In some countries, courts have held that refilling is a form of trademark infringement. In Thailand, however, this is not yet the case. Many contend that Thailand should consider refilling as a form of trademark infringement, as the penalties for trademark infringement are more severe than those in Section 272(1) of the Penal Code. The maximum punishment for trademark infringement under the Thai Trademark Act is up to four years in jail and/or a fine of up to THB 400,000.

In 2012, the Subcommittee of Law Development on Trademarks proposed amending the Trademark Act with the addition of Section 110/1, which would clearly state that “refilling” is an offense under the Thai Trademark Act.

The amendment would state that it is an offense to refill packaging or containers bearing registered trademarks to mislead people into believing that such goods are the products of such registered trademark owners.

The punishment for a refilling offense would be the same as for forgery of another person’s registered trademark, as found in Section 108 of the Trademark Act—up to four years in prison and/or a fine of up to THB 400,000. The amendment is pending review by the Counsel of State.

If this proposed amendment goes ahead, the new law would serve as a greater deterrent against refilling and also provide more protection to consumers. Also, if this provision is enacted, an act of illegal refilling would become a non-compoundable offense, meaning that offenders would not be able to settle a case with an intellectual property owner. This would act as a further deterrent, as the offender would be subject to the full prosecution process.

The dangers of refilling are no different from those of other forms of trademark infringement. In fact, the dangers are arguably more pronounced, as genuine packaging and containers that have been refilled with substandard products are more difficult to differentiate from authentic products, creating even more confusion.

The law should therefore be amended to include more severe punishments for counterfeiters who refill genuine packaging and containers with unauthorized products in order to provide a greater source of deterrence and to safeguard public health and safety.

RELATED INSIGHTS​ 

August 20, 2026
As part of its membership in Lex Mundi, Tilleke & Gibbins has released the latest edition of its Guide to Doing Business in Thailand, providing an overview of the legal, regulatory, and commercial considerations for companies establishing or expanding operations in Thailand. The 2026 edition offers practical insight into the country’s business environment, investment framework, and operational requirements. The guide covers a wide range of topics relevant to foreign and domestic investors, including: Investment incentives and promotion schemes Financial facilities and banking regulations Exchange controls and money transfers Import and export regulations Business structures and incorporation options Requirements for establishing a business Operational and compliance considerations Business cessation and insolvency procedures Employment and labor laws Taxation Immigration and visa requirements Prepared by Tilleke & Gibbins lawyers across multiple practice areas, the publication outlines key aspects of doing business in Thailand, including foreign investment restrictions, regulatory compliance obligations, corporate structures, employment requirements, and recent legal and economic developments affecting investors. The publication forms part of Lex Mundi’s Country Guides series, a global collection of jurisdiction-specific reference materials prepared by member firms around the world. Together, these guides help companies evaluate opportunities, compare regulatory environments, and plan international business activities across multiple markets. The full Guide to Doing Business in Thailand 2026 is available through the button below.
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