This article describes a destruction ceremony held on December 17, 2008. As part of the ceremony, more than 1.6 million counterfeit goods were destroyed.

This article provides a brief description of a number of training seminars organized by Tilleke & Gibbins on behalf of several intellectual property owners. The seminars were attended by police and Customs officers from various regions of Thailand.

It is generally known to practitioners in the cosmetics industry that the Thai Cosmetic Act requires registration of specially controlled cosmetics prior to an act of manufacture, sale, or import. Similarly, any business operators who wish to manufacture or import controlled cosmetics must notify the Thai Food and Drug Administration of the required information according to the law.

In mid-2008, Daimler AG found that counterfeit spare parts and accessories, especially alloy wheels, were being openly displayed and offered for sale on some Web sites and in shops in Bangkok. A series of market surveys and in-depth investigations were then conducted in order to reveal the identity of the illegal business operators and collect evidence to pursue legal actions. After months of strategic planning and preparation, successful police raids were carried out against three targets in Bangkok in October 2008. This article describes the impact of the raids.

After two years of postponement, the Thai Food and Drug Administration (FDA) has announced the implementation of ASEAN Harmonization on Pharmaceutical Registration effective January 1, 2009. This represents a significant change in the Thai FDA’s history of the registration of pharmaceutical products. This article provides an overview of the expected impact of the ASEAN Harmonization rules on both local manufacturers and multinational companies.

In general, a patent examination result obtained in one country should be deemed as valid in other countries for the same technology. Many countries have included this principle in their patent laws. However, the same invention has to go through substantive examination separately on a country-by-country basis. Each country has a different approach to what the examination entails and whether or not the requirements of patentability have been met. Therefore, an application which has already been granted in another country may not necessarily be patentable in Thailand.

A recent Supreme Court decision, Hewlett-Packard Company v. The Department of Intellectual Property, provides important insight into the concept of “distinctiveness through use” or “secondary meaning” under the Thai trademark practice.

Reputable companies often face difficulties when parasitic third parties attempt to derive benefit from a famous trademark when registering their company names. In Thailand, this is a serious concern because the registration system within the Department of Business Development at the Ministry of Commerce does not include a process for determining whether a new company name is similar to trademarks which have been registered with the Department of Intellectual Property.