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​ 

June 22, 2026
Arbitrator independence and impartiality form the cornerstone of a legitimate arbitral process. Under section 19 of the Thai Arbitration Act B.E. 2545 (2002), prospective arbitrators must disclose circumstances likely to give rise to justifiable doubts as to their impartiality or independence, and existing arbitrators must do so throughout proceedings. This mirrors article 12 of the UNCITRAL Model Law. Yet despite this clear mandate, practical implementation varies significantly across Thailand’s arbitration landscape. Background Thailand’s two principal arbitration institutions, the Thai Arbitration Institute (TAI) and the Thailand Arbitration Center (THAC), both maintain procedures for addressing arbitrator challenges and require compliance with the statutory disclosure obligation. Under both sets of rules, any party wishing to challenge an arbitrator must submit a challenge application within fifteen days of becoming aware of the relevant facts, and a committee is appointed to consider the matter on a case-by-case basis. The TAI additionally prescribes its Code of Ethics and Conduct for Arbitrators to further emphasize the expectation of impartiality and transparency. However, Thailand’s arbitration ecosystem extends well beyond the TAI and THAC. Several sector-specific institutions also administer arbitral proceedings, including the Thai Commercial Arbitration Office under the Board of Trade of Thailand, the Arbitration Centre of the Office of the Insurance Commission, the Arbitration Centre of the Securities and Exchange Commission, the Office for the Prevention and Resolution of Disputes regarding Intellectual Property, and the Arbitration Centre of the Thai General Insurance Association. These institutions each operate under their own procedural rules, which were developed to serve particular industries and dispute profiles. The procedural mechanisms for securing and documenting an independence declaration are not uniformly established across these forums. Consequences of Procedural Inconsistency This creates a notable gap. Not all arbitration bodies have a formalized procedure requiring written independence statements before proceedings commence. Some tribunals proceed
Read More
June 16, 2026
The president of Thailand’s Supreme Court has issued new recommendations providing courts with criminal jurisdiction with a comprehensive framework for identifying and dismissing criminal cases brought in bad faith. Published in the Government Gazette on May 29, 2026, after being signed on May 25, the Recommendations of the President of the Supreme Court Concerning Bad-Faith Litigation in Criminal Cases B.E. 2569 were issued under Section 5 of the Act on the Organization of Courts of Justice. The recommendations took effect upon publication and represent a significant step in Thailand’s efforts to curb abusive criminal litigation, including strategic lawsuits against public participation (SLAPP). Background Section 161/1 of Thailand’s Criminal Procedure Code empowers courts to dismiss criminal cases filed dishonestly or with the intent to harass or take unfair advantage of a defendant. The new recommendations provide detailed guidance that courts previously lacked on identifying and handling such prosecutions. Definition of Bad-Faith Litigation Under recommendation 1, filing a criminal case in bad faith is defined broadly to encompass three categories: Harassment-type filings involving intimidation, threats, or creating unreasonable hardship for the defendant; Coercive filings designed to pressure the defendant into acting or refraining from acting for illegitimate benefit; and False or misleading filings that deliberately assert incorrect material facts or conceal such facts. Circumstances Indicating Bad Faith Recommendation 2 sets out specific circumstances that should raise a court’s suspicion that a filing may violate section 161/1. These include: Filing in a distant court far from the defendant’s domicile without benefiting the adjudication; Retaliation against the defendant’s advocacy for human rights, environmental protection, consumer rights, labor rights, or other public interests—effectively establishing an express anti-SLAPP framework; Retaliation against whistleblowers who disclosed corruption or unlawful conduct; Retaliation against individuals responsible for investigating the plaintiff’s wrongdoing or who concluded such an investigation; Filing multiple
Read More
June 16, 2026
Since the implementation of the Trademark Law 2019 on April 1, 2023, Myanmar has operated under a modern first-to-file trademark system that brings its registration framework closer to international practice. As the new regime continues to develop in practice, applicants are increasingly required to navigate formal examination requirements, substantive objections, and procedural deadlines with greater precision. This article provides a high-level review of the trademark examination process in Myanmar, focusing on the principal stages from initial review to approval, the types of objections commonly raised by the Intellectual Property Department (IPD), and the key considerations for responding effectively. A clear understanding of these issues is essential for applicants seeking to secure registration efficiently and to mitigate avoidable delays or refusals. Examination Process: Key Stages Trademark applications filed with the IPD undergo two stages of review. Formality Examination The IPD first verifies compliance with procedural requirements, including: Correct Nice Classification Clear mark representation Accurate applicant details Clearly defined goods or services Representative details, if the application is filed by a representative Other formality requirements cover translation and transliteration of any non-English or non-Myanmar elements in the mark, color claim details, applicable disclaimers, and payment of official fees. Deficiencies result in an office action requiring correction within 30 days, which may be extended upon request. Registrability Examination The IPD also assesses registrability. A mark may be refused if it: Lacks distinctiveness Is descriptive or generic Misleads the public or violates public order/morality Contains prohibited state symbols Only compliant applications proceed to publication. Responding to Office Actions Applicants must respond within 30 days of notification from the IPD. Depending on the nature of the objection, strategies may include submitting legal arguments for distinctiveness, providing evidence of acquired distinctiveness, filing appropriate disclaimers, clarifying descriptions such as color claims, or amending the listed goods
Read More
June 15, 2026
The surge in AI development has led to a desperate demand for large, high-quality training data. However, real-world data can be expensive to collect, difficult to access, and often subject to strict privacy and regulatory constraints. Synthetic data, which consists of artificially generated records that replicate the statistical properties of real-world data without reproducing specific individuals’ information, provides an appealing solution by generating artificial datasets at scale without relying on identifiable personal information. It combines speed, cost efficiency, and regulatory compliance, making it a sensible alternative for organizations seeking to reduce risks while maintaining data utility. When properly anonymized, synthetic datasets may fall outside the scope of laws such as the EU’s General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR) or Thailand’s Personal Data Protection Act (PDPA), reducing compliance burdens while still supporting high-quality model training. However, relying on synthetic data without rigorous legal due diligence could be a strategic mistake. It replaces one set of known risks (scraping, direct privacy liability) with a new set of complex liabilities. The narrative that synthetic data is a “silver bullet” for privacy and IP compliance is dangerous and could be misleading. While synthetic data addresses data scarcity, it also introduces new legal uncertainties. Legal counsel should anticipate downstream risks arising from compromised data sources. Models trained on unlawfully obtained data may need to be decommissioned, even if their outputs appear lawful. What is synthetic data? Synthetic data refers to artificially generated information created using AI techniques such as deep learning and generative models. Instead of copying real records, it reproduces the statistical patterns and relationships found in the original dataset. Synthetic data generally falls into three categories: Fully synthetic data – Entirely new data points generated from learned patterns. The model studies the structure of the original data and produces records that resemble real-world
Read More