In the 15 years since Thailand became a member of the TRIPs Agreement, the country’s intellectual property laws have evolved significantly. A major evolution in the protection of IP rights in Thailand was the establishment in 1997 of the Intellectual Property and International Trade Court, which serves as the court of first instance for IP cases, after which cases may be appealed directly to the Supreme Court.

Under trademark law, a trademark owner has the exclusive right to use his/her registered mark. In reality, however, other traders may use or intend to use a trademark that is identical with or similar to such a registered mark. In these circumstances, those who would like to use such a mark may contact the owner of the prior registered trademark to obtain consent, in the form of an agreement, allowing them to use or even to register that similar mark. The purpose of this agreement is to allow the similar trademark to be registered and coexist with the prior registered trademark.

Recent political events in Thailand have impacted the lives of many, some in tragic and permanent ways. The unrest, which led to a near complete shut-down of Bangkok’s Commercial Center, culminated in chaos and physical destruction, impacting many business operators. Basic public utility services such as electricity, water, and telephones were not available in many areas. For security reasons, banks were forced to close, roads were blocked, and businesses could not operate or were otherwise forced to implement emergency plans to continue operations. Under these unique ci

On April 30, 2010, the Office of the United States Trade Representative (USTR) published its 2010 Special 301 Report examining the application and effectiveness of intellectual property rights enforcement by countries around the world. Thailand, for the fourth year in a row, has been maintained on the Priority Watch List. The USTR has highlighted its concerns regarding the increase of manufacturing and distribution of illegal optical discs and the significant amount of internet, cable, and signal piracy. This article looks at the Report’s findings and its expected impact.

Foreign agrochemical companies usually opt to appoint their local distributors, agents, or licensees as the local entity to apply for and maintain product registration and import licenses as required by Asian Ministries of Agriculture. Such appointments are normally set out in the distribution agreement. While on most occasions this is a mutually beneficial relationship, sometimes local partners who have built up the business for those products may begin to compete unfairly or commit other breaches.

In our experience, many clients have regretted trusting their employees—and in some cases, their business partners—with their intellectual property rights. When a business becomes successful, it runs the risk of some employees or business partners believing that they could set up a similar business and apply key insights gleaned from the company’s IPR to attract the same customers and gain greater profits and market share.

In typical trade secrets cases, the alleged infringer will be a new employee, a former employee, or a third party whom the owner of the trade secret worked with (e.g., consultants, vendors, visitors to the factory, universities, outside inventors, or even governments). Since the two parties know each other, the conflict usually becomes more personal and it can lead to some difficulties when litigation occurs, especially when parties begin to personalize their grievances.

The Vietnam National Internet Centre (VNNIC) has reportedly received hundreds of complaints requesting the withdrawal of registered “.vn” domain names. The number of complaints has increased in direct proportion with the increase in the number of registered “.vn” domain names. The most common basis for such complaints is that the registered domain name is identical to the complainant’s registered trademark or trade name.