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

July 7, 2016

Thailand: Trademark Act Reacts to Refilling and Reuse of Packaging and Containers

Subscribe to Updates
World Trademark Review

In a trademark infringement that is endemic in Thailand, genuine containers and packaging bearing the mark of a legitimate trademark owner are refilled with illicit contents and reused by third parties. These are then sold in the marketplace and are intended to deceive the public into believing that the goods are genuine.

Combatting Refilled Products

Trademark owners often favor taking criminal action for trademark forgery (involving refilling) over civil action. However, pursuing a criminal action is not without its problems as many legal practitioners and academics have publically challenged its efficacy, asserting that forgery of a trademark requires actual production of a fake trademark on fake goods or packaging.

Under these criteria, the use of genuine packaging or containers that bear the mark of a legitimate trademark owner is not considered as forgery of a trademark, even without authorization. Also, due to the influence of public opinion, enforcement authorities are hesitant to assist trademark owners with criminal enforcement actions against packaging or containers refilled with fake goods under the Trademark Act.

This compounds the difficulties stemming from the infringement, which already tarnishes the reputation of original trademark owners and in some cases poses a grave health hazard to consumers when products for consumption are involved, such as used glass bottles refilled with fake liquor that may be poisonous. Other examples include:

  • used plastic bottles refilled with poor-quality lubricant;
  • used printer cartridges refilled with toner or ink products which can emit toxic fumes; and
  • used bottles of sauce refilled with fake sauce.

As a result, instead of pursuing a criminal action for trademark forgery, trademark owners often tackle refilling through Section 272(1) of the Penal Code, which provides for criminal action against an offender using the name, mark or any wording of another in the carrying out of its trade.

Although criminal enforcement is possible through the Penal Code, the penalty is relatively low – a maximum of one-year imprisonment and/or a fine of up to THB 2,000 may be imposed on the infringer. Consequently, infringers are unafraid of committing the offence of refilling, particularly as the court will reduce the penalties by half if the infringer pleads guilty. Imprisonment has mostly been suspended.

Penalties

The National Legislative Assembly recently passed a trademark bill which was published in the Royal Gazette  on April 29, 2016. The law will be enacted on July 28, 2016 (90 days after publication). Section 109/1 of the amended Trademark Act specifies that a person who reuses packaging or containers bearing another’s registered trademarks to mislead the public into believing that the goods are produced by the trademark owner will be liable to imprisonment of up to four years and/or a fine of not more than THB 400,000.

Interestingly, the penalty for this offence is identical to the penalty for forgery of a trademark in Section 108 of the Trademark Act. This amendment confirms that refilling or reusing genuine packaging or containers with fake goods constitutes trademark infringement under Thai trademark law.

However, for there to be liability under this section, infringers must have intended to mislead the public into believing that the refilled packaging contains goods produced by the trademark owner. If the alleged infringer refills or reuses the packaging with a different product, infringement may not be deemed to have occurred. Therefore, a key factor to prove infringement is demonstrating that an infringer intended to pass off its product as that of another.

Although Thailand’s amended trademark law confirms that the unauthorized refilling or reusing of another’s packaging or containers with fake goods constitutes infringement (if passing-off intention can be established), it is yet to be seen what methods infringers will use to avoid liability. In any event, the collection of evidence and strategic planning, together with cooperation between trademark owners and their legal counsel, will continue to serve as an effective means of trademark enforcement.

Download Full Article
Related Professionals

Practices

Intellectual Property

Location

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.
Read More
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
Read More
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
Read More
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
Read More