Intellectual property infringement has been a problem in Thailand for a number of years. Despite collaboration between the government and the private sector, counterfeiters have demonstrated an ability to adapt and evolve, thus allowing them to withstand these efforts at suppression. Since 2006 each year over 2,000 cases—mainly relating to trademark infringement—have been brought to justice, but still large numbers of counterfeit goods continue to reach the market and are exported to other countries.

Until recently, Thailand had no comprehensive law directly addressing product liability issues. As a result, claims for product liability in Thailand were usually made through use of the Consumer Protection Act and the Civil and Commercial Code. However, this changed with the passage of the Product Liability Act B.E. 2551 (2008) in December 2007. This article introduces the key aspects of the new law: the strict liability standard, the types of defects covered by the law, and the defenses that are available to a defendant-operator.

On February 14, 2008, Valentino S.P.A. won a court case against the Department of Intellectual Property (DIP) in relation to the DIP’s refusal of Valentino’s new trademark application in Thailand, VALENTINO & V in Ellipse. This article summarizes the court’s decision.

The cancellation of a trademark based on non-use is relatively rare in Thailand. When the cancellation action is launched against a trademark that has previously been renewed, success is even more uncommon. Yet Tilleke & Gibbins recently succeeded in cancelling two trademark registrations which had been valid for more than 20 years. These decisions by the Board of Trademarks demonstrate that such actions can be successful, given the right circumstances.

The prevalence of counterfeit drugs is on the rise in a large number of countries, including Thailand. To help deal with these chal­lenges, a Memorandum of Under­standing (MoU) was signed on Febru­ary 14, 2008, initiating “Operation to Prevent and Suppress Drugs Violating Intellectual Property.” The signatories to the MoU include the Department of Intellectual Property, the Customs Department, the Royal Thai Police, the Department of Special Investigation, and the Pharma­ceutical Research and Manufacturers Association.

To obtain patent protection, patent owners are obligated to publicly disclose certain information about the invention. The specification must be explicitly disclosed in a manner sufficiently clear and complete in order to enable a person skilled in the art to understand how to implement and carry out the invention. This article illustrates the requirement through a case study of a patent application for the herb Kwao Krua.

In Thailand, much like in other jurisdictions, one of the most important factors in determining the registrability of a trademark application is the requirement that the mark must be sufficiently distinctive. By employing a case study involving the trademark AVERMEDIA, this article helps to elucidate the Thai Court’s dis­cretion in weighing whether an unusual combination of words which is used in an arbitrary manner can be considered suf­ficiently distinctive for registration.

Thailand has recently adopted new legislation on product liability. The new law is designed to protect consumers who incur damage from defective prod­ucts by imposing strict liability on those involved in the production and sale of products. From the perspective of an IP owner who may be manufacturing, selling, importing, or licensing technologies or trademarks to others to produce, import, or sell a product which may potentially cause harm to consumers, there are essen­tially three key points that must be kept in mind about this new legislation, as described in this article.