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​ 

August 20, 2026
Thai law contains no provision that speaks directly to what happens to an arbitration when one of the parties becomes insolvent. The interaction between arbitration and insolvency is derived instead from the general operation of two separately drafted laws: the Bankruptcy Act B.E. 2483 (1940) and the Arbitration Act B.E. 2545 (2002). Because Thai courts have had few opportunities to interpret how these two statutes apply together, the practical answer to many questions, such as who represents an insolvent party in arbitration, whether an award will be enforced, and what happens to a foreign proceeding, depends on inference from general principles of insolvency, arbitration, and procedural law rather than on settled rules. Liquidation and Restructuring The Bankruptcy Act governs both liquidation, which winds up a debtor’s affairs, and restructuring (rehabilitation), which aims to preserve a business. The consequences for arbitration differ accordingly. In liquidation, the debtor’s assets vest in the official receiver, who alone can conduct or continue any arbitration affecting the estate; the debtor loses the authority to act on its own behalf. In restructuring, the plan preparer or administrator takes over that role, but there is more room for the debtor to remain involved, since the objective of rehabilitation is to keep the business operational. Restructuring carries an automatic stay that takes effect once the Bankruptcy Court accepts the restructuring petition. This stay can halt an arbitration regardless of where it is seated. In contrast, liquidation does not work through a stay; instead, the debtor’s loss of authority over its own assets and disputes is what constrains the arbitration. Neither proceeding provides a party a formal route to apply for permission to continue arbitrating—the Bankruptcy Act contains no such mechanism—though in restructuring cases the Bankruptcy Court may allow proceedings to continue where doing so will not prejudice
Read More
August 20, 2026
As part of its membership in Lex Mundi, Tilleke & Gibbins has released the latest edition of its Guide to Doing Business in Thailand, providing an overview of the legal, regulatory, and commercial considerations for companies establishing or expanding operations in Thailand. The 2026 edition offers practical insight into the country’s business environment, investment framework, and operational requirements. The guide covers a wide range of topics relevant to foreign and domestic investors, including: Investment incentives and promotion schemes Financial facilities and banking regulations Exchange controls and money transfers Import and export regulations Business structures and incorporation options Requirements for establishing a business Operational and compliance considerations Business cessation and insolvency procedures Employment and labor laws Taxation Immigration and visa requirements Prepared by Tilleke & Gibbins lawyers across multiple practice areas, the publication outlines key aspects of doing business in Thailand, including foreign investment restrictions, regulatory compliance obligations, corporate structures, employment requirements, and recent legal and economic developments affecting investors. The publication forms part of Lex Mundi’s Country Guides series, a global collection of jurisdiction-specific reference materials prepared by member firms around the world. Together, these guides help companies evaluate opportunities, compare regulatory environments, and plan international business activities across multiple markets. The full Guide to Doing Business in Thailand 2026 is available through the button below.
Read More
August 19, 2026
Arbitration clauses and national court jurisdiction have long existed in a delicate equilibrium, and nowhere is that equilibrium tested more often than in the drafting of multitier dispute resolution clauses. Such clauses—requiring negotiation before arbitration—are ubiquitous in international construction contracts, and they frequently employ permissive vocabulary at the arbitration tier. The formulation “either party may submit the dispute to arbitration” is intended to signal that either side is entitled to initiate proceedings. Yet it is periodically seized upon by claimants who prefer national courts, on the theory that “may” preserves a parallel right to litigate. Each apex-court pronouncement on this question is therefore significant for drafting practice and forum predictability. In 2019, the Thai Supreme Court delivered Thailand’s clearest answer to date (Judgment No. 3427/2562). Reversing an appellate court decision, the Supreme Court held that permissive wording at the point of commencement does not dilute the parties’ antecedent agreement to withdraw their disputes from the courts—doing so in regard to an International Chamber of Commerce (ICC) arbitration clause seated in Singapore, a configuration typical of foreign-invested projects in Thailand. This article examines the court’s reasoning, situates the decision within comparative jurisprudence, and draws out its practical lessons for parties and drafters operating in the Thai market. Background of the Dispute The dispute arose from a subcontract for civil engineering and architectural works concluded on September 25, 2014. Clause 19 of the subcontract governed dispute resolution. Clause 19.1 required the parties, at the request of either, to seek to resolve any dispute “in connection with, arising out of, or relating to” the subcontract through mutual consultation within sixty days of written notice. According to clause 19.2.1, if the dispute could not be resolved within that period, “either party may submit the dispute to arbitration,” to be conducted under the ICC
Read More
August 18, 2026
Securing a favorable judgment is often only the midpoint of a dispute. For businesses and investors, the more important commercial question is whether that judgment can be converted into actual recovery. In Thailand, this typically requires the judgment creditor to enforce the judgment through the Legal Execution Department by seizing, attaching, auctioning, or otherwise executing against the judgment debtor’s assets. Thailand’s schedule of these enforcement fees was last revised by an amendment to the Civil Procedure Code that took effect in September 2025. The Civil Procedure Code Amendment Act (No. 33) B.E. 2568 (2025) updated the schedule of execution officer fees listed in table 5 of the Civil Procedure Code. While the amendment did not eliminate the costs associated with enforcement, it lowered several key execution officer fees and abolished certain fees that previously applied even where enforcement did not ultimately result in the sale or disposition of assets. The reform is intended to reduce the financial burden associated with judgment enforcement and remove unnecessary obstacles to settlement once enforcement proceedings have commenced. As a result, it has practical implications not only for judgment creditors seeking to maximize recovery, but also for debtors considering settlement after enforcement has begun and for businesses and investors assessing litigation and credit risk in Thailand. Key Changes The amendment introduced several changes to the execution officer fee structure. First, where seized or attached assets are sold by public auction or otherwise disposed of, the execution officer fee has been reduced from 3% to 2% of the sale or disposition proceeds. This fee remains separate from announcement costs and other out-of-pocket expenses incurred during the enforcement process. Second, where seized or attached funds are paid to a judgment creditor, the execution officer fee has been reduced from 2% to 1% of the amount recovered.
Read More