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 24, 2018

Case Studies of Successful IP Enforcement in Thailand in 2018

Subscribe to Updates
Informed Counsel

When encountering infringing activities, brand owners may question what options are available to them. Generally, IP enforcement options in Thailand include customs seizures, cease-and-desist letters, negotiations, mediations though the Department of Intellectual Property, and criminal and civil litigation. Each option has its advantages and disadvantages and is applicable to different situations. Options could be completely ineffectual in certain cases unless brand owners choose the right one.   

Tilleke & Gibbins’ lawyers and in-house investigation team have extensive experience and a well-established record of assisting brand owners in enforcing their rights in Thailand and Southeast Asia. This article presents a few examples of successful IP enforcement actions undertaken by our firm in early 2018 to resolve infringement of our clients’ valuable IP rights.

Customs Seizure of Counterfeit Goods in Transit

Thailand’s new Customs Act was enacted in 2017 to replace the Customs Act 1926. The new law introduces penalties for transit and transshipment of counterfeit and pirated goods, including imprisonment of up to 10 years, or a fine of up to THB 400,000, or both. The new penalties broaden the scope of protection at the nation’s borders and are very beneficial to brand owners.   

In February 2018, Tilleke & Gibbins acted in the very first case involving the seizure of counterfeit goods in transit in Thailand. Our firm was notified by officers at Laem Chabang Port Customs Bureau, who suspected that an incoming container held counterfeit goods based on information provided by an informant that suspicious goods were being imported into Thailand.

Officers inspected the container’s documents, which declared that the shipment was imported kitchenware that was being transported from China through Thailand and into Lao PDR. The customs officers proceeded to x-ray the container and noticed that the sizes of the packages in the container were quite varied, further raising their suspicions and prompting the decision to open the container.

As the final destination of the container was to be Lao PDR, officials from the Lao PDR Embassy in Thailand were invited to witness the opening of the container. Lao officials declined to send anyone to witness the opening of the container, and thus customs officers requested the vessel’s agent to be the witness. Upon opening the container, it was found that most of the goods contained inside were potential counterfeits, with officers seizing more than 100,000 items, including apparel, shoes, handbags, electronic appliances, auto parts, and accessories.

With the new stringent measures set out by the Customs Act of 2017, customs officers are now more empowered to support IP enforcement to suppress the transportation of counterfeit and pirated goods in all possible ways, including in transit and transshipment.

Raid Actions against Counterfeit Products

Our client, a well-known Thai food manufacturer and distributor, recently discovered that potentially unsafe counterfeit foods were being sold across many provinces in Thailand. Our client thus entrusted Tilleke & Gibbins with an anticounterfeiting project, with the aim to entirely eliminate the counterfeit products in the market to protect Thai consumers.

In April 2018, we provided our client with investigation services conducted by our in-house investigation team, advised on strategic planning and the most feasible legal options, and coordinated with the police at the Economic Crime Suppression Division to conduct raid actions against wholesale and retail shops selling the counterfeit foods.

In just a few months, we successfully conducted three raid actions and seized more than 1,400 counterfeit items from infringers, creating a strong deterrent against other similar counterfeit products in the market and sending a strong message to the public that our client is not reluctant to take strong legal action against any infringers, regardless of the size of the infringers’ business, in order to protect the Thai public from risky counterfeit foods.

Amicable Settlement through Negotiations

Some people may think that threatening to initiate legal action is the only way to stop infringers from continuing their infringing activities. But many disputes can actually be amicably resolved by negotiation, which can confer many benefits to the brand owners involved.

In March 2018, our firm assisted a world-renowned Japanese electronics company in enforcing its rights against several importers and distributors of infringing products. After sending a cease-and-desist letter, we engaged with the infringers to explain the legal grounds and the purpose of us sending the letter to them. Like in many other similar cases, the infringers declared that they had not intended to infringe our client’s rights since they had no knowledge of such IP protection. Through negotiations, our team convinced the infringers to comply with all of our demands, sign a letter acknowledging our client’s rights, and agree to refrain from future infringement. The infringer also recalled all the infringing goods from their distributors and retuned nearly 200 counterfeit items to us for destruction.

By negotiating on our client’s behalf, we were able to stop the infringing activities immediately, destroy the infringing products, and obtain a guarantee for future compliance through a letter of undertaking rather than initiating potentially costly and time-consuming litigation in court. Through negotiations, it is also possible to obtain disclosure of the source of counterfeit products to take further legal action against the manufacturer, or even request compensation for damages.

Thai laws provide numerous tools for brand owners to protect and enforce their rights, with laws regularly amended to strengthen measures against infringing activities, such as the new Customs Act 2017. With the range of options available, it is important for brand owners to select the most suitable approach for their specific circumstances.

Download Full Article
Related Professionals

Practices

Intellectual Property

Location

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
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
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
Read More