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, allowing them to withstand efforts at suppression. Over 2000 cases, mainly trademark infringement, are brought to justice each year, but a large volume of counterfeit goods finds its way to market and is exported. Infringement activities are often related to other crimes, resulting in a complex web of legal, economic, and social problems.

Intercountry adoption has been in the headlines over the past few years, with international celebrities such as Angelina Jolie/Brad Pitt and Madonna garnering much media attention for their adoption experiences. Since the practice is not limited to adoption between citizens of one country and there is no global authority with oversight of intercountry adoption, individual governments are left to the task of creating their own adoption laws to protect their citizens. As a result, adoption laws can vary from country to country, creating much confusion for prospective adoptive parents.

In Unimin Corporation v. Department of Intellectual Property (February 19 2008), the Board of Trademarks has held that Industrial Mineral Development Co Ltd had applied for the registration of the trademark CERASIL in bad faith. This article summarizes the case.

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.