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

May 24, 2018

Case Studies of Successful IP Enforcement in Thailand in 2018

Subscribe to Updates
Informed Counsel

When encountering infringing activities, brand owners may question what options are available to them. Generally, IP enforcement options in Thailand include customs seizures, cease-and-desist letters, negotiations, mediations though the Department of Intellectual Property, and criminal and civil litigation. Each option has its advantages and disadvantages and is applicable to different situations. Options could be completely ineffectual in certain cases unless brand owners choose the right one.   

Tilleke & Gibbins’ lawyers and in-house investigation team have extensive experience and a well-established record of assisting brand owners in enforcing their rights in Thailand and Southeast Asia. This article presents a few examples of successful IP enforcement actions undertaken by our firm in early 2018 to resolve infringement of our clients’ valuable IP rights.

Customs Seizure of Counterfeit Goods in Transit

Thailand’s new Customs Act was enacted in 2017 to replace the Customs Act 1926. The new law introduces penalties for transit and transshipment of counterfeit and pirated goods, including imprisonment of up to 10 years, or a fine of up to THB 400,000, or both. The new penalties broaden the scope of protection at the nation’s borders and are very beneficial to brand owners.   

In February 2018, Tilleke & Gibbins acted in the very first case involving the seizure of counterfeit goods in transit in Thailand. Our firm was notified by officers at Laem Chabang Port Customs Bureau, who suspected that an incoming container held counterfeit goods based on information provided by an informant that suspicious goods were being imported into Thailand.

Officers inspected the container’s documents, which declared that the shipment was imported kitchenware that was being transported from China through Thailand and into Lao PDR. The customs officers proceeded to x-ray the container and noticed that the sizes of the packages in the container were quite varied, further raising their suspicions and prompting the decision to open the container.

As the final destination of the container was to be Lao PDR, officials from the Lao PDR Embassy in Thailand were invited to witness the opening of the container. Lao officials declined to send anyone to witness the opening of the container, and thus customs officers requested the vessel’s agent to be the witness. Upon opening the container, it was found that most of the goods contained inside were potential counterfeits, with officers seizing more than 100,000 items, including apparel, shoes, handbags, electronic appliances, auto parts, and accessories.

With the new stringent measures set out by the Customs Act of 2017, customs officers are now more empowered to support IP enforcement to suppress the transportation of counterfeit and pirated goods in all possible ways, including in transit and transshipment.

Raid Actions against Counterfeit Products

Our client, a well-known Thai food manufacturer and distributor, recently discovered that potentially unsafe counterfeit foods were being sold across many provinces in Thailand. Our client thus entrusted Tilleke & Gibbins with an anticounterfeiting project, with the aim to entirely eliminate the counterfeit products in the market to protect Thai consumers.

In April 2018, we provided our client with investigation services conducted by our in-house investigation team, advised on strategic planning and the most feasible legal options, and coordinated with the police at the Economic Crime Suppression Division to conduct raid actions against wholesale and retail shops selling the counterfeit foods.

In just a few months, we successfully conducted three raid actions and seized more than 1,400 counterfeit items from infringers, creating a strong deterrent against other similar counterfeit products in the market and sending a strong message to the public that our client is not reluctant to take strong legal action against any infringers, regardless of the size of the infringers’ business, in order to protect the Thai public from risky counterfeit foods.

Amicable Settlement through Negotiations

Some people may think that threatening to initiate legal action is the only way to stop infringers from continuing their infringing activities. But many disputes can actually be amicably resolved by negotiation, which can confer many benefits to the brand owners involved.

In March 2018, our firm assisted a world-renowned Japanese electronics company in enforcing its rights against several importers and distributors of infringing products. After sending a cease-and-desist letter, we engaged with the infringers to explain the legal grounds and the purpose of us sending the letter to them. Like in many other similar cases, the infringers declared that they had not intended to infringe our client’s rights since they had no knowledge of such IP protection. Through negotiations, our team convinced the infringers to comply with all of our demands, sign a letter acknowledging our client’s rights, and agree to refrain from future infringement. The infringer also recalled all the infringing goods from their distributors and retuned nearly 200 counterfeit items to us for destruction.

By negotiating on our client’s behalf, we were able to stop the infringing activities immediately, destroy the infringing products, and obtain a guarantee for future compliance through a letter of undertaking rather than initiating potentially costly and time-consuming litigation in court. Through negotiations, it is also possible to obtain disclosure of the source of counterfeit products to take further legal action against the manufacturer, or even request compensation for damages.

Thai laws provide numerous tools for brand owners to protect and enforce their rights, with laws regularly amended to strengthen measures against infringing activities, such as the new Customs Act 2017. With the range of options available, it is important for brand owners to select the most suitable approach for their specific circumstances.

Download Full Article
Related Professionals

Practices

Intellectual Property

Location

RELATED INSIGHTS​ 

July 24, 2026
Indonesia has updated its fee framework for intellectual property (IP)-related government services, with implications for IP owners, licensees, lenders, digital platforms, and businesses operating in the country. Government Regulation No. 30 of 2026 on Types and Tariffs of Non-Tax State Revenue Applicable to the Ministry of Law (GR 30/2026) was promulgated on July 2, 2026, and will take effect on August 1, 2026. Key Takeaways GR 30/2026, which replaces the relevant IP service fees under Government Regulation No. 45 of 2024, reorganizes the fee schedule into separate categories for copyright, industrial designs, patents, layout designs of integrated circuits, trade secrets, trademarks, geographical indications, IP enforcement, and other categories. The most commercially relevant changes include a new copyright recordation tariff exemption for songs and music, higher fees for several trademark and geographical indication services, new IP enforcement service fees, and a new fee type for registration of fiduciary security over IP rights objects. In addition, this is the first major update for trademark fees in approximately 10 years. GR 30/2026 is significant not only as a fee update but also as a further indication of Indonesia’s increasing recognition of IP as a financeable commercial asset. By expressly assigning fees to the registration of fiduciary security over IP rights objects, the regulation places IP-backed collateral filings within the Ministry of Law’s administrative service framework. While GR 30/2026 does not create a new secured-transactions regime, this development is relevant for lenders, borrowers, and IP owners structuring financing arrangements secured by trademarks, patents, copyrights, industrial designs, or other registrable IP rights in Indonesia. Copyright: New Fee Exemption for Songs and Music Recordation For copyright, GR 30/2026 creates a fee-exempt category for recordation of works or related-rights products for songs or music, while maintaining a separate category for other works and related-rights products. It
Read More
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