Recent reports of melamine contamination of imported milk products have had a profound global impact, not only on the Chinese milk product manufacturers and exporters, but on other businesses in the supply chain. In Thailand, the effect of the melamine scandal on local business is reflected in lost sale opportunities and a general reduction in consumer confidence. The melamine scandal also highlights a point of concern for business operators providing products in Thailand: the impact of recent legislative changes on litigation of product liability claims.

In a move to address numerous complaints from condominium buyers, the Thai government has enacted the Condominium Act (No. 4) 2008. Effective as of July 4, 2008, the new law significantly expands the scope of consumer protection to potential condominium buyers by amending several provisions of the existing Condominium Act 1979. Since passage almost 30 years ago, the original Act has been amended three times in an attempt to keep the law up-to-date with new private sector developments and practices.

In Thailand, there are relatively few patent and petty patent infringement cases tried each year. From 2000 through July 2008, a total of 40,823 intellectual property cases were tried before the Central Intellectual Property and International Trade Court, but only 155 of these involved patent infringement. In examining the statistics for patent case filings during this period, certain trends are immediately apparent.

Each year, many civil and criminal cases involving IP infringement are tried before the Central Intellectual Property and International Trade Court (IP&IT Court). From 2000 through July 2008, a total of 40,823 actions involving infringement of trade­marks, copy­right, patent, and petty patent were filed. Surprisingly, only 155 of these cases centered on issues of patent and petty patent infringement. This article examines the statistics for civil and criminal suits regarding patent and petty patent infringement in the IP&IT Court during this period.

After more than 77 years under the previous legislation of 1930, a new Film and Video Act replacing its predecessor finally entered into force in Thailand on June 4, 2008. The new Act has considerable consequences for foreign producers shooting films in the Kingdom as well as for foreign films intended to be screened in the coun­try. Thailand is also unfortunately well known for the large number of pirated videos being sold on its streets. This new Act thus integrates certain provisions which may provide useful new options for sanc­tioning those selling such counterfeit products.

Until recently Thailand did not have a specific law which governed court pro­ceed­ings in respect of disputes between consumers and business operators. The newly adopted Consumer Case Procedure Act is truly one of a kind. Despite being designated as procedural law, the Act contains both procedural and substantive provisions. The new law took effect on August 23, 2008, and the media has already reported numerous com­plaints filed by consumers against busi­ness operators for various types of viola­tions. This article introduces the Act’s provisions.

When evaluating two possibly similar marks, the Registrar and the Board of Trademarks have a tendency to focus on specific elements of the marks that may be deemed similar. Usually, this means focusing primarily on certain aspects of appearance and pronunciation, while deemphasizing other important issues such as actual use of the mark in trade or the intent of the parties in seeking registration. This approach can be contrasted with the method employed by Thai courts, which consider a wide variety of factors in rendering their judgments.

Trademark owners are frequently surprised by a particular approach used by the Board of Trademarks which has now become entrenched in its practice. Over the past several years, the Board has main­tained its decision-making trend regarding marks which consist of a distinctive word or well-known house mark combined with other descriptive or nondistinctive words, in which the Trademark Registrar initially required the disclaimer of such descriptivenondistinctive words.