You are using an outdated browser and your browsing experience will not be optimal. Please update to the latest version of Microsoft Edge, Google Chrome or Mozilla Firefox. Install Microsoft Edge

March 13, 2026

Brand Owners Maximize ROI Through Criminal IP Proceedings in Thailand

Subscribe to Updates
Managing Intellectual Property

For decades, intellectual property rights holders seeking to eliminate counterfeit goods from the Thai market have relied primarily on criminal raid actions to seize infringing products and hold infringers accountable. The deterrent value of this approach is typically threefold: imposing criminal liability on infringers, removing counterfeit goods from circulation, and subjecting violators to imprisonment and fines. However, these outcomes often fall short of fulfilling brand owners’ broader objectives. In many cases, those prosecuted are merely staff or intermediaries rather than the principals orchestrating the infringing operations. Moreover, any fines imposed are remitted to the Thai government—not to the rights holders who have suffered commercial harm and invested substantial resources in investigation and coordination with law enforcement authorities.

As in other jurisdictions worldwide, rights holders seeking monetary compensation for IP infringement in Thailand have traditionally pursued separate civil litigation. Before initiating such proceedings, a brand owner must gather sufficient evidence to establish both the infringement and the resulting damages. Notably, Thai law does not recognize punitive damages; courts award only actual damages proven by the claimant. In the absence of seized infringing goods, the damages awarded in such cases are typically minimal. This all leaves rights holders with limited recourse despite possibly having suffered significant commercial injury.

In 2005, Thailand amended its Criminal Procedure Code to introduce Section 44/1, which enables rights holders to claim damages within criminal proceedings at the Intellectual Property and International Trade Court prior to the evidentiary hearing. In practice, this mechanism allows an injured party to submit a petition for civil damages directly within the criminal case initiated by the public prosecutor.

Historically, rights holders in Thailand have been reluctant to use Section 44/1 because the compensation awarded by courts was often insufficient to justify the effort. However, recent years have seen a notable shift in how Thai courts assess damages in criminal IP proceedings when the injured brand owner files a claim for compensation under Section 44/1. This development offers significant advantages: brand owners can now avoid the burden of parallel civil litigation and recover damages within the same criminal proceedings.

Although this procedural tool has long been available, its practical impact is now more significant than ever.

How One Brand Owner Recovered Damages in a Criminal Prosecution

In a recent matter involving counterfeit consumer goods, the legitimate brand owner engaged Tilleke & Gibbins to conduct a market investigation aimed at tracing the source of infringing products. Beyond identifying retail outlets, the investigation mapped distribution channels, identified upstream suppliers and manufacturers, and gathered documentary and physical evidence sufficient to support criminal enforcement.

Based on the evidence collected, enforcement authorities conducted a raid action. The seized goods were confirmed to be counterfeit, and the police subsequently submitted the investigation file to the public prosecutor, who proceeded with criminal charges.

Once the criminal complaint was formally filed, the brand owner exercised its right under Section 44/1 to submit a petition for damages as the injured party within the same criminal proceedings. The damages claim submitted was structured into three main components:

  • Property damage and lost sales. Calculated based on the official wholesale price of the genuine product in Thailand multiplied by the total number of counterfeit units seized during the raid.
  • Damage to reputation and goodwill. Claimed as a lump-sum amount to reflect the unlawful exploitation of a globally recognized brand, dilution of distinctiveness, consumer confusion, and potential erosion of trust in widely consumed goods.
  • Enforcement and legal costs. Covering investigation expenses and legal fees incurred in tracing the source of counterfeit goods and supporting the raid action, supported by documentary evidence.

In cases involving consumer goods that may pose health or safety risks, Thai courts have shown heightened sensitivity. Likewise, in cases with counterfeit goods relating to products used in daily consumption or personal care, courts recognize not only trademark infringement but also the broader public interest dimension, as these counterfeit goods may endanger consumers and undermine trust in legitimate distribution channels.

In this case, the court rendered its judgment in favor of the brand owner, ordering the defendants to pay approximately half the total damages claimed. The court’s granting of the enforcement costs in full and awarding of a substantial amount for reputational harm was a clear recognition of the commercial and consumer impact of counterfeit goods.

This development signals an increasingly pragmatic and brand-conscious approach by the Thai IP Court, particularly in cases involving widely consumed products.

Strategic Implications for Brand Owners

This case illustrates how an enforcement action in Thailand can deliver both criminal accountability and financial recovery within a single proceeding. Specifically, it highlights four important considerations for businesses forming IP enforcement strategies in Thailand:

  • Investigation quality. As part of an integrated enforcement strategy, a well-documented investigation that traces supply chains and preserves evidence strengthens both criminal prosecution and any subsequent damages claim.
  • Substantiation of reputational harm. Courts are increasingly receptive to structured explanations of brand value, distribution networks, quality control systems, and consumer trust.
  • Claiming damages within Thai criminal proceedings. Invoking Section 44/1 offers efficiency and leverage by avoiding the time and expense of separate civil litigation and aligning with public prosecution.
  • Emphasizing consumer safety. Sectors involving consumer safety receive particular judicial attention. Brand owners operating in food, cosmetics, pharmaceuticals, personal care, and other daily-use product markets may benefit from stronger damage assessment where consumer risk is demonstrable.

International brand owners evaluating enforcement options in Thailand should note the Thai judiciary’s deepening engagement with the economic harm and implications of IP infringement. While the country’s specialized IP Court has long been a strong point, this further evolution shows that Thai courts are not merely focusing on punishing infringers but are increasingly recognizing the commercial consequences borne by brand owners.

As a result of this shift, raid actions in Thailand should no longer be viewed solely as deterrent measures. They are becoming financially rational enforcement tools capable of generating tangible recovery.

In practical terms, the return on investment in well-prepared raid actions has steadily improved. With careful evidence gathering, strategic formulation of damages, and effective use of procedural tools, rights holders can now achieve both criminal accountability and meaningful financial redress within a single proceeding. This is an important step toward more commercially aligned and brand-conscious IP enforcement in Thailand.

This article first appeared in Managing Intellectual Property.

Related Professionals

Practices

Dispute Resolution and Litigation

Intellectual Property

Location

RELATED INSIGHTS​ 

February 25, 2026
In December 2025, the National Assembly of Vietnam enacted a new Law on Construction, replacing the 2014 Law on Construction as amended in 2020. The 2025 Law on Construction will, in principle, take effect on July 1, 2026, subject to certain exceptions. Among its notable reforms, one development has attracted particular attention from both legal practitioners and market participants: the introduction of a statutory framework governing predetermined damages, commonly referred to as “liquidated damages.” This marks the first time liquidated damages have been expressly recognized at the level of primary legislation in Vietnam. While liquidated damages clauses have long been a common feature of construction contracts in practice, their legal enforceability has historically been subject to uncertainty. Although the new provision appears to represent a positive step toward greater legal clarity, it remains an open question whether it is sufficient, on its own, to provide a solid legal basis for the enforceability of liquidated damages clauses in construction disputes in Vietnam. What’s New? Article 86.2 of the 2025 Law on Construction provides (emphasis added): “Compensation for damages shall be determined on the basis of actual damages [or] predetermined damages corresponding to obligations under the construction contracts that are breached [and] the extent of such breaches.” This provision is significant in that it expressly recognizes predetermined damages, or liquidated damages, as a lawful basis for determining compensation for damage. However, the new law does not define “predetermined damages.” The absence of a statutory definition creates potential ambiguity as to the scope and nature of this concept and may give rise to disputes over how—and whether—a particular contractual clause qualifies as predetermined damages for the purposes of Article 86.2. Further, Article 86.2 qualifies the application of predetermined damages by requiring that such damages correspond to the obligations not fulfilled and the
Read More
February 25, 2026
Tilleke & Gibbins has updated the Vietnam chapter in the newly released Licensing 2026 guide, published by Lexology Panoramic. The comparative guide provides companies and other interested readers with information on licensing law and practice in various countries around the world. Licensing 2026 provides detailed information on the following topics: Restrictions, laws and licensing arrangements Intellectual property issues: Paris Convention for the Protection of Industrial Property, contesting the validity of licensor’s IP rights, invalidity and expiry of IP rights, security interests, proceedings against third parties, sublicensing, jointly owned IP, first to file, scope of patent protection, trade secrets, copyright Software licensing: Perpetual licensing, legal requirements, user restrictions Royalties and payments, currency conversion, and taxes: Relevant legislation, restrictions, taxation of foreign licensors Competition law issues: Restrictions on trade, legal restrictions, and IP-related court rulings Indemnification, disclaimers, and damages: Prevalence and enforceability of indemnity provisions and contractual waivers of damages Termination: Right to terminate, impact of termination Bankruptcy: Impact of licensee or licensor bankruptcy Dispute resolution: Governing law, arbitration, enforceability, injunctive relief, contractual waivers The Vietnam chapter is available below as a PDF. Readers can gain 30 days of complementary access to the full Licensing 2026 guide and the rest of Lexology Panoramic’s varied offerings through this link.
Read More
February 20, 2026
Thailand’s Supreme Administrative Court has issued a decisive ruling annulling the Ministry of Labor’s notification that had granted an exemption for foreign pilots to fly domestic routes under wet‑lease arrangements. A wet lease is a leasing arrangement in which the aircraft is provided together with its foreign flight crew, including pilots, and related operational support, rather than the airline supplying its own pilots. The judgment, delivered on November 17, 2025, and published in the Government Gazette on January 30, 2026, follows a legal challenge brought by the Thai Pilots Association, which argued that the exemption unlawfully enabled foreign workers to assume a role traditionally reserved for Thai nationals. The notification in question, dated December 13, 2024, authorized foreign pilots who came as part of wet‑leased aircraft to fly domestic routes. The Thai Pilots Association disputed the legality of this rationale, asserting that the exemption was triggered by a private airline’s request rather than by any statutory necessity. The Ministry of Labor justified this measure by relying on aircraft‑specific approvals issued by the Ministry of Transport and by enabling the Department of Employment to issue corresponding work permits. Arguments Presented in the Case The Thai Pilots Association argued that the exemption undermined the interests of domestic pilots and conflicted with the policy intent of Thailand’s foreign‑worker regulatory framework. The lawsuit emphasized that the notification arose directly from a private airline company’s request to operate two A320 aircraft under a wet lease and that the measure had the practical effect of displacing Thai pilots who remained unemployed. Meanwhile, the Ministry of Labor defended the exemption as a temporary and necessary response to industry shortages and part of national efforts to support tourism and restore aviation capacity. Legal Framework Thai law establishes a general prohibition against foreign nationals piloting domestic aircraft. Section
Read More
February 9, 2026
When unauthorized credit card transactions occur, who bears responsibility—the cardholder or the issuing bank? In Thailand, a landmark 2025 ruling by the country’s Supreme Court has clarified this question, establishing a stricter standard for banks in fraud disputes and significantly strengthening consumer protections. The case centered on disputed charges where a customer claimed their credit card had been used without authorization. The bank sued to recover the amount, and both the court of first instance and the Court of Appeal ruled in favor of the bank. However, the Supreme Court overruled their judgments and decided that the customer did not need to pay for the unauthorized transactions, placing liability squarely on the bank. This ruling was based on three key findings, which are outlined below. Finding 1: Insufficient Expert Testimony In this case, the bank bore the burden of proving matters related to the credit card system’s manufacture, design, security, and operation, as required under the Consumer Case Procedure Act B.E. 2551 (2008). To meet this requirement, the bank presented testimony from two employees in its credit card department regarding ’security measures and issuance procedures. However, the Supreme Court found these witnesses unqualified as experts, as they did not present technical or academic evidence and did not possess specialized expertise in credit card technology. As a result, their testimony failed to establish that the bank’s credit card technology was sufficiently secure against fraudulent misuse. Finding 2: Contradictory Terms and Conditions The bank’s own credit card terms and conditions included a provision acknowledging that despite the card’s EMV security standards, cardholders must still exercise caution to prevent unauthorized access. The Supreme Court interpreted this clause as an explicit admission that credit card systems remain vulnerable to hacking and fraud, even with high-level security measures in place. This acknowledgment undermined the
Read More