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

October 10, 2019

Trademarks and Thailand’s New Medicinal Cannabis Sector

Subscribe to Updates
World Trademark Review

Thailand caught the cannabis industry by surprise in January this year when it became the first Asian country to legalise medicinal cannabis, while at the same time restricting foreign participation in the industry for at least the first five years and thwarting cannabis-related patent applications.

With certain amendments to the Narcotics Act and with Thai Food and Drug Administration medical cannabis registration pathways set out in the soon-to-be promulgated implementing regulations, a complex roadmap of who can be licensed for what purposes seeks to ensure governmental control over the process for the beginning stages. There are currently four types of licences and seven entities that have standing to apply for these. Each entity is only eligible for certain licensed activities and for certain purposes. The system of legislation and licences is designed to exclude foreign participation in the Thai cannabis industry by erecting several barriers.

The first barrier to foreign participation is that for the first five years, starting from 19 February 2019, only state agencies may obtain a licence to produce, import or export cannabis. The only way for a private entity to enter the industry is to act jointly with one of the few state agencies that can acquire these commercialisation licences.

The second barrier is that only Thai private entities may participate, even after the five-year government development period. Only a private entity with an office in Thailand and at least two-thirds of directors, partners, or shareholders having Thai nationality, may act jointly with a state agency to acquire or share these types of commercialisation licences or later apply for one on their own. While foreign entities can certainly create local Thai subsidiaries and then apply for a partnership, it is unclear whether it will receive unjustified additional scrutiny or whether the Ministry of Public Health will even support this kind of application.

The third barrier has been to use quasi-emergency powers to prevent foreign competition. The Patent Office took action to prevent foreign competition by rejecting seven pending cannabis patent applications from foreign applicants, likely violating the World Trade Organisation’s (WTO) Agreement on Trade Related Aspects of Intellectual Property. By rejecting the patent applications, Thailand has ensured that Thai enterprises have complete freedom to enter the market without being blocked by foreign parties’ patent rights.

Their basis for rejecting the applications was that they would be against “public order and morality”, since the amendments had not yet come into force, rendering the applications illegal. However, under this reasoning, medicinal applications for cannabis will be patentable, but recreational applications will not. Since a single invention may have multiple applications, problems arise with regard to arbitrary application review procedures. More questions loom on the horizon for foreign patent applicants as, under the legislation, it is illegal for non-Thai entities to engage in the cannabis trade. Will this also render any foreign applicant’s patent invalid for violating “public order and morality”?

With respect to registration of cannabis-related trademarks in Thailand, the examination of such marks is still in the early stages and is not subject to the same emergency powers that have been imposed on patent applications. At present, it appears that the current position of the Thai registrars is that goods related to cannabis for medical purposes are acceptable, but that trademarks made up of words or images relating to cannabis are not and trademark applications containing such words or images will be refused. However, as Thailand’s cannabis laws and policies continue to evolve, the position on trademarks may change as well.

Thailand’s actions to intentionally exclude foreign participation at the current stage of the industry calls into question its commitment to several major WTO treaties. Fortunately, the amendment allows for the minister of public health to allow new entities to acquire licences as deemed necessary. This is a key allowance, as who may be allowed access to the industry is open-ended and – with a party who fought for liberal cannabis policies at the reins – promising. With a population currently in need of medicinal cannabis, the facilities established by the government might not be able to supply enough medical-grade cannabis for the current need or, even if it can supply sufficient, it may not be able to supply it quickly enough. This need for assistance may open up the door for foreign entities to enter the market and provide access to sufficient medicinal cannabis to meet current and future demand.

 

This article was first published by World Trademark Review on September 5, 2019 and is reproduced here with thanks.

Download Full Article
Related Professionals

Industries

Life Sciences

Practices

Intellectual Property

Regulatory Affairs

Location

RELATED INSIGHTS​ 

August 10, 2026
On June 17, 2026, Indonesia’s National Agency of Drug and Food Control (BPOM) issued BPOM Regulation No. 10 of 2026 on Nutritional Information on Processed Food Labels. The new regulation, which revokes three previous nutrition labeling regulations, introduces several notable changes affecting food and beverage manufacturers, importers, and distributors. These changes range from updated nutrient reference values and serving-size requirements to the introduction of the Nutri-Level front-of-pack labeling system for certain beverage products. Businesses operating in Indonesia should carefully review these developments and assess their products’ compliance with the new requirements during the transition period. Implementation of the Nutri-Level Labeling System To implement the recently issued decree on Nutri-Level labeling, BPOM Regulation No. 10 of 2026 stipulates the requirements to implement the Nutri-Level labeling system on the front-of-pack. Under the new framework, ready-to-drink beverages, powdered beverages, and liquid or solid concentrates are required to display Nutri-Level labeling on the front label of their packaging. The Nutri-Level labeling system classifies products into color-coded levels A through D based on their sugar, sodium, and total fat content. The applicable Nutri-Level is determined based on the lowest level measured in the assessment of sugar, sodium, and total fat content. For products classified as level C or D, the Nutri-Level label must be accompanied by information on the relevant sugar, sodium, and total fat content per 100 ml of the ready-to-consume product. Products classified as level A or B may either display only the Nutri-Level designation or display the Nutri-Level together with the relevant nutritional information per 100 ml. Minimum Vitamin and Mineral Content Required for Declaration BPOM Regulation No. 10 of 2026 introduces a stricter threshold for the declaration of vitamins and minerals in the nutritional value information section (ING). Vitamins or minerals may only be declared if they are present at a
Read More
August 10, 2026
The drug registration process in Vietnam will be simplified, particularly for foreign applicants, following the recent issuance by Vietnam’s Ministry of Health (MOH) of a new circular that is expected to reduce administrative hurdles. Circular No. 32/2026/TT-BYT on the registration of drugs and medicinal ingredients (Circular 32) was issued on July 29, 2026, and will take effect on October 1, 2026, replacing Circular No. 12/2025/TT-BYT. Key provisions of the new circular are discussed below. Five-Year Data Exclusivity and Five-Month Public Disclosure Framework Circular 32 updates data protection guidelines by explicitly referencing Article 128 of the amended Intellectual Property Law, which sets out that new drugs supported by clinical trial data submitted for the first time will be granted a five-year data exclusivity period from the date of the initial marketing authorization (MA) approval. Subsequent applications that rely on the originator’s protected data will not be eligible for approval from the date of submission of the originator’s registration dossier until five years after the first MA is granted. Furthermore, in accordance with the new regulations, the regulatory authority must publicly disclose information on subsequent applications five months before the granting of MA, providing originator companies with an opportunity to exercise and enforce their intellectual property rights. Simplified Requirements for Foreign Legal Documents Circular 32 expands the circumstances under which legal documents issued by foreign authorities are exempt from consular legalization and authenticity verification requirements. Specifically, such documents may be exempt if the Drug Administration of Vietnam (DAV) is able to verify their authenticity directly through official electronic means, including written confirmation or email correspondence sent directly to the MOH by the competent foreign authority, or publicly accessible English-language databases maintained by recognized foreign regulatory authorities. In addition, the new circular permits the submission of electronic notarized copies of legal documents
Read More
July 24, 2026
As food innovation continues to accelerate, manufacturers are increasingly introducing ingredients derived from new sources, produced using novel technologies, or lacking a significant history of human consumption. While these innovations create new opportunities for the food industry, they also raise important questions regarding consumer safety. For this reason, many jurisdictions, including Thailand, the European Union, Australia and New Zealand, Canada, and Singapore, require a premarket safety assessment for novel food ingredients before they can be placed on the market. The objective of this assessment is to ensure that each ingredient is safe for its intended use and level of consumption, does not present toxicological, allergenic, microbiological, or nutritional concerns, and will not mislead consumers. Scientific authorities typically evaluate the ingredient’s identity, manufacturing process, composition, specifications, anticipated dietary exposure, toxicological information, nutritional impact, and history of use before determining whether it can be marketed. Against this background, the Thai Food and Drug Administration (FDA) recently took an important step toward improving regulatory transparency by publishing, for the first time, a consolidated public list of substances that have successfully completed the Thai FDA’s safety assessment process, including substances determined to be novel foods and those determined not to fall within the novel food category. The list identifies the approved substances, the corresponding manufacturers or importers, approval dates, and the approved conditions of use. Although the publication does not change the existing legal framework governing novel food approvals, it provides businesses with greater visibility into the Thai FDA’s regulatory precedents and the types of substances that have previously been accepted through the safety assessment process. The full announcement is available on the Thai FDA’s website. As the list is now publicly available, it also provides useful insight into the types of substances that have successfully completed the Thai FDA’s safety assessment process.
Read More
July 24, 2026
For businesses in Thailand’s regulated industries, the problem of “too many licenses” is one of the most familiar hurdles to getting a product to market. Take a simple example: importing the materials necessary to sell teriyaki chicken skewers. To legally do this, a business may need approvals from several different agencies—separate permits for the chicken (Department of Livestock Development), the dipping sauce (Thai FDA), the wooden skewers (Department of Forestry), and other ingredients, each under a different authority. This kind of overlap is often cited to argue for a “regulatory guillotine”—a systematic review to cut outdated or duplicative rules that slow investment and business activity. The Facilitation of Licensing and Public Service Consideration Act B.E. 2569 (2026) (Licensing Facilitation Act 2026) is Thailand’s most significant response yet to that concern. This article looks at the Facilitation Act 2026 through a life sciences and regulatory affairs lens—what it may mean for the manufacturers, importers, and distributors of food, drugs, medical devices, cosmetics, and similar products who routinely deal with several regulators to bring a single product to market. The Super License: One Approval Standing in for Many The reform with the clearest potential for regulated-product businesses is the law’s “super license” mechanism, referred to as a “main license” in the statute. Once a business obtains the main license for a regulated activity, it is automatically deemed to hold all related sublicenses issued by other agencies for that same activity, provided the activity has been designated as eligible in the Government Gazette. The Licensing Facilitation Act 2026 also creates a central application center, allowing applicants to submit a single application and pay all relevant fees at one point of contact, with the center routing the application to each agency through a shared information system. The potential benefits of this for businesses
Read More