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 27, 2026
Vietnam’s new E-Commerce Law, which took effect on 1 July 2026 along with its implementing Decree No. 248/2026/ND-CP (Decree 248), marks a significant development in the country’s approach to online intellectual property (IP) enforcement, reflecting a clear shift from a reactive model of intermediary liability to one that expects platforms to play a more active role in preventing infringement. From notice-and-takedown to platform responsibility The most significant change introduced by the E-Commerce Law is the transformation of the legal role of e-commerce platforms. The existing safe harbor provisions under the IP Law and the copyright notice-and-takedown regime established by Decree 17/2023/ND-CP (Decree 17) largely required intermediaries to act only after receiving notice of infringement. Once infringing content had been removed, the platform’s legal obligation was generally considered fulfilled. The new legislation adopts a fundamentally different approach. Article 17 of the E-Commerce Law requires intermediary platforms to screen information relating to goods and services before publication in order to prevent listings involving counterfeit or IP-infringing goods, and goods of unknown origin. Rather than relying exclusively on complaints from rights holders, platforms are now expected to implement preventive measures before infringing listings become publicly available. Decree 248 further requires platforms to update keyword filters based on recommendations issued by competent authorities. These filtering mechanisms are intended to prevent prohibited listings from appearing on the platform and represent a further move away from a purely complaint-driven enforcement model. The legislation also introduces Vietnam’s first statutory stay-down obligation. Under the E-Commerce Law and Decree 248, major digital platforms must maintain automated systems capable of reviewing, warning against, and removing unlawful listings while also implementing measures to prevent repeat violations, defined under Decree 248 as conduct that has previously been identified and handled by the platform, but continues to recur. This obligation addresses one
Read More
July 27, 2026
Tilleke & Gibbins’ intellectual property specialists have authored the Thailand chapter of Trade Secrets 2026 from Chambers and Partners. This global guide examines the legal frameworks governing trade secret protection, enforcement, and litigation across jurisdictions worldwide. The Thailand chapter provides a comprehensive overview of the country’s legal regime for protecting confidential business information, covering the legal framework, trade secret misappropriation, litigation procedures, remedies, and dispute resolution. Some topics covered include: Protectable trade secrets Reasonable measures to maintain secrecy Employee confidentiality Trade secret licensing Civil and criminal remedies Litigation procedures and injunctions Damages and other remedies Mediation and arbitration The guide also examines practical issues relating to safeguarding trade secrets, defending against allegations of misappropriation, and managing trade secret disputes in Thailand. Chambers and Partners’ Global Practice Guides provide in-house counsel with authoritative commentary on practical legal issues affecting business, enabling readers to compare legislation and procedures across multiple jurisdictions. The Thailand chapter of Trade Secrets 2026 is available as a PDF through the button below. The full guide can be accessed for free on the Chambers and Partners website.
Read More
July 27, 2026
In March 2025, Thailand’s Central Intellectual Property and International Trade Court (IP&IT Court) issued a landmark judgment in favor of Luckin Coffee, China’s leading retail coffee chain. The judgment marked a significant turnaround following earlier trademark litigation involving Luckin Coffee from 2021 to 2023 that had generated widespread public attention and raised questions about the protection available to legitimate foreign brand owners in Thailand. In a significant subsequent development, Thailand’s Court of Appeal for Specialized Cases has now affirmed the IP&IT Court’s judgment in its entirety. The appellate decision brings clarity to one of Thailand’s most closely watched trademark disputes. Significantly, this is the first case in Thailand to formally recognize the trademark squatting principle. The Court of Appeal confirmed that Luckin Coffee has a better right to the disputed mark and ordered cancellation of the defendants’ trademark registration—a key application of the “better right” doctrine. The court also upheld the substantial damages awarded at first instance, providing important guidance on assessing harm from systematic trademark squatting. Award-Winning Judgment Affirmed in Its Entirety The significance of the first-instance judgment extended beyond the outcome for Luckin Coffee. The IP&IT Court judgment was subsequently recognized in the IP&IT Court’s Distinguished Judgment Awards in 2025, reflecting the complexity, novelty, and legal significance of the issues considered in the case. The defendants nevertheless appealed the judgment, challenging several key aspects of the IP&IT Court’s decision. Luckin Coffee continued to entrust Tilleke & Gibbins as their sole attorney to pursue the case at the appellate level. After considering the defendants’ appeal and Luckin Coffee’s submissions in response, the Court of Appeal affirmed the first-instance judgment in its entirety. The judgment was announced on July 8, 2026. Better Right to the Marks The Court of Appeal confirmed Luckin Coffee’s superior rights. The orders include cancellation
Read More
July 24, 2026
As food innovation continues to accelerate, manufacturers are increasingly introducing ingredients derived from new sources, produced using novel technologies, or lacking a significant history of human consumption. While these innovations create new opportunities for the food industry, they also raise important questions regarding consumer safety. For this reason, many jurisdictions, including Thailand, the European Union, Australia and New Zealand, Canada, and Singapore, require a premarket safety assessment for novel food ingredients before they can be placed on the market. The objective of this assessment is to ensure that each ingredient is safe for its intended use and level of consumption, does not present toxicological, allergenic, microbiological, or nutritional concerns, and will not mislead consumers. Scientific authorities typically evaluate the ingredient’s identity, manufacturing process, composition, specifications, anticipated dietary exposure, toxicological information, nutritional impact, and history of use before determining whether it can be marketed. Against this background, the Thai Food and Drug Administration (FDA) recently took an important step toward improving regulatory transparency by publishing, for the first time, a consolidated public list of substances that have successfully completed the Thai FDA’s safety assessment process, including substances determined to be novel foods and those determined not to fall within the novel food category. The list identifies the approved substances, the corresponding manufacturers or importers, approval dates, and the approved conditions of use. Although the publication does not change the existing legal framework governing novel food approvals, it provides businesses with greater visibility into the Thai FDA’s regulatory precedents and the types of substances that have previously been accepted through the safety assessment process. The full announcement is available on the Thai FDA’s website. As the list is now publicly available, it also provides useful insight into the types of substances that have successfully completed the Thai FDA’s safety assessment process.
Read More