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​ 

July 21, 2026
Thailand’s Ministry of Digital Economy and Society (MDES) published a notification establishing an expedited court-ordered takedown mechanism for online content in cases of “urgent necessity.” The notification, which was issued on July 17, 2026, under the Computer Crime Act B.E. 2550 (2007), as amended, took effect the following day. It significantly expands the categories of content subject to rapid government-initiated removal. Content Categories Subject to Takedown The notification defines “urgent necessity” (section 20, paragraph 5, of the Computer Crime Act) as circumstances where any delay in suppressing computer data may impact national security, religion, the monarchy, good morals, social culture, or public order. In this regard, it establishes four broad categories of content: Computer Crime Act offenses. National security offenses. IP and other criminal offenses, where it is contrary to public order or good morals and a competent officer has requested its suppression. Content contrary to public order or good morals, a broad residual category encompassing 14 subcategories approved by the Computer Data Screening Committee. The fourth category is the most expansive. Its 14 subcategories include: Content defaming, mocking, satirizing, or devaluing the monarchy. Online gambling advertising or facilitation. Offering illegal firearms for sale. Offering baraku (hookah) products or e-cigarettes for sale. Offering cannabis inflorescences or processed cannabis products for sale. Advertising or soliciting prostitution. Content inciting violence, hatred, or social division. Unauthorized overseas employment advertising. Offering boiled kratom juice for sale. Online sale or advertising of alcoholic beverages. Content satirizing or degrading Buddhism. Money lending at interest rates exceeding legally prescribed limits. Advertising or disseminating information about surrogacy services. Forgery of documents, cards, or official documents. Enforcement Procedure In cases of urgent necessity, a competent official assigned by the MDES permanent secretary must file a petition with supporting evidence to the court with jurisdiction, requesting an order to
Read More
July 15, 2026
Ambush marketing refers to a strategy in which a business associates itself with an event, campaign, or brand without paying for official sponsorship rights. The tactic is most visible in sports, concerts, and festivals, where official sponsors have invested substantially for exclusivity. Ambush marketers may use suggestive wording, event-themed imagery, athlete endorsements, venue-adjacent promotions, or social media campaigns implying a commercial connection with the event. Common Forms of Ambush Marketing Ambush marketing typically takes one of the following forms: Direct ambushing: using event names, logos, or mascots suggesting authorization Coattail ambushing: sponsoring an athlete or broadcaster connected with the event Subtle ambushing: themed advertising, venue-adjacent campaigns, or similar visual cues The legal analysis in each case turns on whether the marketing crosses from permissible event-based advertising into infringement, passing off, deception, or wrongful exploitation of goodwill, and the risk assessment is necessarily fact-specific. Thailand has no dedicated ambush marketing statute, so legality depends on execution. A campaign that merely comments on a public event may be permissible, but one that uses protected marks, creates consumer confusion, misrepresents sponsorship status, or makes unsubstantiated claims may trigger liability under various Thai laws, as laid out below. Ambush Marketing and Thailand’s Trademark Act The Trademark Act B.E. 2534 (1991) is the primary tool for addressing campaigns that use registered trademarks, event names, logos, mascots, or confusingly similar signs. The law gives registered trademark owners the exclusive right to use their mark for registered goods, and infringement risk arises when a nonsponsor uses an event mark or a confusingly similar sign in advertising. Even referential or playful use may create liability if it causes public confusion as to sponsorship or commercial connection. The law also preserves passing-off claims for unregistered marks. This matters because event names, taglines, or mascots may not always be
Read More
July 13, 2026
When Decree No. 186/2026/ND-CP (Decree 186) takes effect on July 15, 2026, it will introduce the most significant reform of Vietnam’s administrative IP enforcement framework since Decree 99/2013/ND-CP was issued in 2013. These changes are expected to make administrative enforcement faster, more accessible, and better suited to the realities of modern IP disputes. Below are the principal reforms and their practical implications for rights holders and enforcement practitioners. The End of Notarization and Consular Legalization Among the most welcome procedural changes is the abolition of the notarization and consular legalization requirement for powers of attorney (POA) submitted in administrative enforcement proceedings. Under the previous regime, foreign rights holders were generally required to execute a POA, then have it notarized and consular legalized (if seeking customs recordal). In practice, this process frequently delayed enforcement by four to eight weeks, often long enough for infringing goods to disappear before authorities could intervene. Decree 186 removes this bottleneck, now requiring only an original or certified copy of the POA. If the document is in a foreign language, a Vietnamese translation is sufficient, provided it is certified by a competent authority or confirmed by the authorized Vietnamese IP representative. Consular legalization and notarization are no longer required. For rights holders, the practical impact is substantial. Administrative enforcement files that previously took weeks to prepare can now be completed in a matter of days, allowing much faster responses in time-sensitive matters such as warehouse raids, border interventions, and trade-fair enforcement. The decree also introduces a useful administrative simplification. Where an original POA has already been submitted to the same enforcement authority and remains valid, applicants may rely on a copy of that earlier submission by identifying the previous case file. This eliminates unnecessary duplication for rights holders pursuing multiple enforcement actions before the same
Read More
July 9, 2026
Recycling, upcycling, and refill-packaging models are now widely promoted as ways to reduce waste, lower carbon emissions, and respond to consumer demand for sustainable products. However, complications arise when these environmentally driven trends intersect with intellectual property law—particularly where reused or altered packaging continues to display third parties’ registered trademarks. Adding to this complexity, Thailand’s draft Sustainable Packaging Management Act aims to introduce new environmental compliance obligations that businesses must navigate alongside existing trademark concerns. Recycling and upcycling packaging may infringe trademark rights, especially in cases not protected by the first-sale doctrine—the principle that a trademark owner’s rights over a particular mark-bearing product end once the owner first sells it. Furthermore, even refill packaging carries legal risk due to specific statutory prohibitions under Thai law. Compounding these challenges, the draft Sustainable Packaging Management Act will impose extended producer responsibility (EPR) obligations on manufacturers and brand owners, requiring them to manage packaging throughout its lifecycle. These overlapping legal frameworks could deter manufacturers from pursuing ESG-aligned business models unless businesses understand how to navigate both trademark and environmental requirements. Under Thai law, this issue remains uncertain because the Trademark Act does not expressly codify the first sale doctrine, also known as the exhaustion of trademark rights. Generally, this doctrine provides that once a trademark owner has lawfully sold goods bearing its trademark, the owner’s right to control further resale of those particular goods is exhausted. The rationale is that the owner has already received commercial benefit from the first authorized sale; therefore, the purchaser should be free to resell or otherwise dispose of the goods. Although the doctrine is not expressly codified in the Trademark Act, Thai courts have recognized it in relation to genuine goods and parallel imports, as seen in a Supreme Court Judgment No. 2817/2543 in which the
Read More