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

February 20, 2018

Draft Bill Provides Updates to Protection of New Plant Varieties in Thailand

Subscribe to Updates
Informed Counsel

The Department of Agriculture, Ministry of Agriculture, recently proposed a Draft Bill on the Plant Variety Protection (No. 2) (Draft PVP Bill) and released it for public hearing. The Draft PVP Bill aims to amend the Plant Variety Protection Act B.E. 2542 (1999) (PVP Act) so that Thai law is in compliance with the International Convention for the Protection of New Varieties of Plants, which came into force on March 19, 1991 (UPOV 1991). The current PVP Act was drafted based on UPOV 1978.

The major amendments to the Draft PVP Bill can be summarized are as follows:

Introduction of the “Essentially Derived Varieties” (EDV) Concept

The EDV concept was proposed to prevent the exploitation of protected varieties by engineering minor alterations of a protected initial plant variety, such as by using biotechnology and genetic engineering methods. Under this concept, cultivators of an EDV are unable to exploit their altered variety without permission from the rights holder of the initial variety. According to the Draft PVP Bill, to receive protection the EDV must share the genotype of the initial variety and must not be significantly different from that variety in its essential characteristics.

Introduction of “Harvested Materials” to New Plant Variety Rights

The current PVP Act gives a new plant variety owner the right to “propagating materials.” To comply with UPOV 1991, the Draft PVP Act will also confer an owner with rights to the “harvested materials” of the new plant variety, including rights to the products created from the “harvested materials” of the new plant variety.

Limitations of Plant Breeders’ Rights

The current PVP Act allows farmers to save seeds in an amount of up to three times the amount originally received. However, in the Draft PVP Bill, the owner of the new plant variety will have the right to save the seeds of the new plant variety for propagation, improvements to propagation, sale, offering for sale, and exportation and importation. The new plant variety owner’s rights will not include any acts conducted on the new plant variety that: (1) are not intended for propagating the plant variety; (2) are not intended for commercialization; or (3) are intended for research and development in plant breeding. Also exempted is where cultivation or propagation of a new plant variety is done by the farmer on his/her own land, or as allowed by the Ministry of Agriculture, with authorization by the Plant Variety Protection Commission.

Revision of Grace Period for “Novelty” of New Plant Varieties

The current PVP Act allows for a grace period of one year for propagating materials that will be sold or distributed within or outside of Thailand. To comply with UPOV 1991, the Draft PVP Bill amends the relevant provision to include a grace period for propagating material or harvested material that will be sold or distributed in any way within or outside of Thailand under the control of the plant breeder or another party designated by the plant breeder. For general plants, the grace period is one year if sold or distributed within Thailand and four years if sold or distributed outside Thailand. For trees or vines, the grace period is extended to six years.

Updates to the Protection Period for New Plant Varieties

The current PVP Act provides the following protection periods for new plant varieties: 12 years for fruit-bearing plants that bear fruit within two years from germination; 17 years for fruit-bearing plants that bear fruit beyond two years from germination; 27 years for trees that are used for timber or trees that bear fruit. To comply with UPOV 1991, the protection period under the Draft PVP Bill has been amended to extend protection of plants bearing fruit to be longer than set out in the current PVP Act. Counting from the issuance date of an owner’s Plant Variety Certificate, general plants will have 20 years of protection, and trees and vines will have 25 years of protection.

The Draft PVP Bill has already undergone a public hearing, but remains surrounded by controversy as there are complaints that it still lacks clarity on some points, with several exceptions in the bill granting the Ministry of Agriculture and the Plant Variety Protection Commission ultimate discretion in a number of matters. Most opposition to the Draft PVP Act is focused on the introduction of “harvested materials,” as new plant variety rights will be extended to include fruits, crops, and other food products, which in turn may affect food sustainability.

It seems likely that the Draft PVP Bill will need further revision and broader consensus, including review by the Thai Farmers Association, before the new law can be approved and implemented. It is anticipated that a revised Draft Bill will be completed and circulated for another hearing by the end of 2018.

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