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

August 24, 2017

The Thai Government’s Campaign to Improve IPR Protection and Enforcement

Subscribe to Updates
Informed Counsel

The Office of the United States Trade Representative (USTR) has placed Thailand on its Priority Watch List (PWL) every year since 2007 due to the significant influx of counterfeit goods available both online and in local markets, and the lack of effective and deterrent enforcement measures in the country.

However, the USTR stated in its Special 301 Report  released in April 2017 that the United States was prepared to review Thailand’s PWL status if the Thai government continued taking positive steps and made substantial progress in addressing the USTR’s concerns over a number of issues. Possible further actions that the government could take include:

  • introducing an effective legal provision on landlord liability;
  • preventing circumvention of technological protection measures;
  • resolving the backlog of pending patent applications;
  • combating the widespread use of unlicensed software;
  • reducing the lengthy time frames for civil IP enforcement proceedings; and
  • increasing civil damages awards, which have traditionally been quite low. 

Encouraged by the possibility of Thailand being removed from the PWL, the Prime Minister of Thailand, H.E. Gen. Prayuth Chan-ocha, took this matter into consideration by the National Council for Peace and Order (NCPO) and ordered all concerned parties to take immediate steps to suppress the circulation of counterfeit goods in Thailand. In turn, the NCPO has assigned the Department of Intellectual Property (DIP) to coordinate and achieve this goal by the end of 2017.

The DIP and Internal Security Operations Command (ISOC) have categorized notorious markets into two categories and projected that counterfeit goods and pirated goods in the first group will completely disappear by the end of September 2017, while those in the second group will be gone by the end of 2017. The markets in these two groups are listed as follows:

First group: 

  • Mahboonkrong Center (MBK)
  • Pantip Plaza
  • Pratunam area
  • Rong Kluea Market (on the Thai-Cambodian border in Sa Kaeo province)

Second group:

  • Klong Thom area
  • Ban Mo area
  • Chatuchak Weekend Market

The DIP and ISOC, together with IP owners, are taking this matter very seriously and aggressively enforcing IP rights at the notorious markets mentioned above. For example, the DIP and IP owners (or their representatives) have performed a number of surveillance sweeps at MBK. The DIP has even set up an “IP Enforcement Center” within MBK to pressure illicit sellers in the area, with enforcement actions conducted against numerous stores selling counterfeit goods, resulting in a number of infringers either being shut down by authorities or closing voluntarily to avoid legal action.

In addition to the enforcement schemes that were implemented by the Thai government after the release of the Special 301 Report, the DIP has supported a number of legislative measures designed to improve the IP situation in Thailand, such as a plan to enact ministerial regulations to support  Section 32/3 of the amendments to the Copyright Act, amendments to the Computer Crime Act, and amendments to the Trademark Act concerning the protection of sound marks.

Moreover, the Director General of the DIP stated in a DIP consultation meeting with the private sector on July 7, 2017, that accession to the Madrid Protocol should be completed in November 2017 to support international trademark registration in Thailand. At the same time, the DIP is taking all possible steps to clear the current backlog of patent applications and improve the Thai patent and trademark registration system, including by hiring more patent and trademark officers.

The DIP also recently signed a memorandum of understanding with the USTR in July 2017, in order to strengthen the relationship and cooperation between the two agencies. The agreement aims to improve the management and efficiency of Thailand’s IP system by promoting information exchange and capacity-building activities between the USTR and the DIP.

In light of the serious steps taken by the Thai government and the DIP over the past few months, if these steps taken by the Thai government are sustained and Thailand follows through on the commitments above to crack down on IP infringement and expand IP rights, the hope of releasing Thailand from the PWL may soon be realized. 

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