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

November 23, 2016

Copyright Act Amendments: Combating Online Infringement – Obstacles and Prospects

Subscribe to Updates
Informed Counsel

Last year’s amendments to the Thai Copyright Act gave copyright owners broader and more advanced tools to tackle copyright infringement in the digital age. Among these amendments, the one which has garnered the most attention is Section 32/3, which provides preliminary injunctive relief for copyright infringement on computer systems. This feature has been of particular interest to IP practitioners and scholars, who have attempted to determine how best to utilize this section in order to enforce against copyright infringement on the Internet.

While Section 32/3 was designed to address the removal of infringing copyright works online, thus far, it has resulted in a number of unsuccessful enforcement actions by content owners. This article discusses the utility of Section 32/3 to date and offers suggestions for possible improvements which could benefit all stakeholders.

Background to Section 32/3

Section 32/3 was intended to simultaneously limit the liability of Internet service providers (ISPs) and provide a procedure for content owners to have infringing content removed from the Internet, similar to the safe harbor and notice-and-takedown procedures being used in some countries. However, while these jurisdictions do not require court intervention for their notice-and-takedown processes, Section 32/3 does.

During the drafting process of Section 32/3, due to concerns about the possible risk of abuse by exploitative copyright owners or other illegitimate actors, the Office of the Council of State inserted the court as an impartial gatekeeper to review all takedown requests for compliance with the requirements of the statute. This step was designed to prevent copyright owners from excessively enforcing their rights against non-infringing content.

Such misuse of notice-and-takedown procedures has occurred in other countries through use of automated notice programs, which scan Internet platforms without human oversight and often request the removal of clearly non- infringing content. At the same time, critics have claimed that involving the court unnecessarily slows down and complicates the process, and makes ISPs less likely to voluntarily take down infringing content, absent a court order.

How Does Online Infringement Occur?

There are three main categories of platforms that infringers use to reproduce and distribute infringing works online, namely online marketplaces, social media sites, and private websites.

Each category of platform presents unique enforcement issues for content owners whose rights are infringed. A private website run by a professional counterfeiting organization is going to react very differently to a request for cooperation compared to a legitimate social media platform. Rights owners require dependable procedures to block or remove infringing content, regardless of the type of platform used by an infringer.

Methods of Removal

When an ISP is in control of content and is willing to cooperate with content owners, infringing content online may be handled through takedown requests. Due to their international presence, many of the largest online platforms, such as eBay and YouTube, have instituted their own internal brand registry and takedown procedures. These policies are found in the platforms’ Terms of Use, and they operate without any involvement by the courts or other government agencies. Such cooperation between platforms and content owners is a good example of a collaborative solution to online infringement accomplished by ISPs and content owners working together.

While this is promising, it does not address how to combat the worst infringers: private websites that conduct their illegal businesses anonymously on hidden servers which may be located anywhere in the world. When infringing content is hosted by an ISP with servers in a foreign jurisdiction, blocking users from accessing the infringing content may be the only available remedy. While not itself immune from criticism, website blocking may be accomplished in a focused manner by only targeting the specific URL where the infringing content is located.

Obstacles to Enforcement Using Section 32/3

Courts have struggled with implementing Section 32/3 because it does not explicitly provide for website blocking. Takedown orders are effective with compliant ISPs under the jurisdiction of the Thai court. However, takedown orders targeting foreign ISPs with servers hosted outside of Thailand are often unenforceable and are likely to be ignored. As such, the Thai courts have been unable to provide remedies to content owners for the vast majority of infringing websites hosted on foreign servers.

Another result of Section 32/3 is that some Thai ISPs now expect to receive a court order before they will voluntarily comply with a takedown request, based on the unfounded fear that they may lose their liability exemption provided by the statute if they do otherwise. This concern has no basis in the text of the Copyright Act, but it continues nevertheless.

In addition, Section 32/3 requires plaintiffs to follow up a request for a preliminary injunction with a lawsuit, but it does not specify the type of action to be taken, whether civil, private, criminal, or by filing a charge with the police. This creates uncertainty for courts and plaintiffs over for how to pursue a claim under Section 32/3. Additionally, after the content has been removed, copyright owners may think that there is no need for a lawsuit, or it may be very difficult to bring one—in a civil action, the damages may be too low to justify a suit against an anonymous defendant, and in a criminal action, the three-month prescription period is easily exceeded.

In either case, the plaintiff may require the assistance of the court to subpoena the identity of an anonymous infringer from the hosting ISP. The statute, however, does not provide for such a remedy.

Finally, although Section 32/3 appears in Part 6 of the  Copyright Act—which lists exceptions to infringement of copyright—it reads like a litigation procedure. If Section 32/3 is intended to demonstrate that ISPs are not liable for unknowingly hosting infringing content on their services, then combining it with a litigation requirement does not further those ends.

The DIP’s Efforts

In an encouraging move, the Department of Intellectual Property (DIP) recently proposed a draft guideline for best practices in notice-and-takedown procedures in the hope that copyright owners and ISPs will be able to work together to stop the dissemination of infringing content on the Internet. Thus far, however, this draft guideline has only been shared with a focus group of major copyright owners as a pilot project and has not yet been distributed publicly or become official.

The DIP also recently circulated a letter stating that it is teaming up with the National Broadcasting and Telecommunication Commission (NBTC) to increase its enforcement efforts against online infringement. To that end, the NBTC will begin working with copyright owners to block access to infringing sites before the end of the year. While the letter does not disclose the method that will be used to block access to sites, this should be seen as a positive step in the fight against online infringement.

The DIP is also exploring the opportunity to collaborate with the Ministry of Digital Economy and Society (formerly the Ministry of Information and Communication Technology) by changing the draft amendment of the Computer Crime Act to provide for blocking infringing content on the Internet. It should be noted that the draft amendment of the Computer Crime Act is not expected to be finalized until sometime next year, so copyright owners may have awhile to wait before this cause of action is available in Thailand.

While the DIP’s recent efforts are not yet close to actual implementation, they demonstrate that the DIP is listening to copyright owners and is intent on addressing online infringement.

Outlook

Section 32/3 of the Copyright Act has created a safe harbor for ISPs by limiting their liability for infringing content which is posted to their services by third parties. However, in these situations, injunctive relief has eluded content owners. Until this matter is resolved, to obtain reliable results content owners should broaden the scope of their enforcement strategies and not limit themselves to Section 32/3 alone.

In addition, the utilization of traditional investigative methods may also be effective in locating and identifying anonymous infringers online. Content owners should actively collaborate with experienced legal counsel in order to create comprehensive enforcement strategies to best protect their digital content.

Download Full Article
Related Professionals

Practices

Intellectual Property

Location

RELATED INSIGHTS​ 

October 3, 2025
In Thailand, the rise in online intellectual property infringement has prompted authorities to strengthen enforcement efforts, including the use of website-blocking orders under Section 20(3) of the Computer Crime Act B.E. 2560 (2017) (CCA). This provision authorizes the Ministry of Digital Economy and Society (MDES), with court approval, to block or remove computer data that constitutes a criminal offence under IP law. Since its implementation, the procedure has undergone several developments, which is an encouraging sign of progress. Website-blocking procedure In practice, website-blocking orders under Section 20(3) of the CCA are primarily used for copyright and trademark infringement. While such orders are legally applicable to patent infringement, their use remains challenging due to the difficulty of proving infringement through administrative procedures. The website-blocking procedure begins when an IP owner identifies online infringing content. For copyright infringement, which is considered a compoundable offence, the IP owner is required to first file a police report with the specialized police unit known as the Economic Crime Suppression Division (ECD) prior to filing the website-blocking application with the Department of Intellectual Property (DIP). For trademark infringement cases, the application can be filed directly with the DIP without a prior police report. The DIP reviews the evidence and, if infringement is confirmed, forwards it to the MDES for further consideration. If the case is deemed valid, the MDES requests a court order to block the infringing website. Once granted, the MDES notifies the internet service providers (ISPs) to block access to the specified website. Website blocking procedure in Thailand Recent advancements in website-blocking actions Seamless collaboration through digital integration. Thailand has made significant progress in digitizing its website-blocking procedures to improve efficiency and transparency. At present, all website-blocking applications and supporting evidence must be submitted in electronic format. These systems have significantly reduced processing
Read More
September 24, 2025
Online shopping in Thailand is more accessible than ever, with global platforms, local social media shops, and entertainment-driven social commerce enabling instant purchases. However, this convenience comes with rising concerns over digital intellectual property (IP) infringement, including counterfeit goods, pirated content, and unauthorized brand usage. At first glance, online platforms appear to offer quick solutions. Most major e-commerce sites, social media channels, and social commerce platforms provide “notice and takedown” systems, where IP owners can file complaints and request the removal of listings that infringe IP rights, such as trademarks and copyrights. These tools are certainly useful, as seeing a fake product vanish from a platform feels like progress. But the reality is less reassuring. The counterfeit goods themselves remain in warehouses, markets, or shops, ready to be resold. Sellers whose accounts are taken down often return within days under new names or accounts. In other words, a takedown is like cutting weeds without pulling out the roots: they always grow back. While notice and takedown tools are widely available and can be managed internally by most IP owners, their impact is often short-lived. IP owners seeking more effective, lasting protection need to take a more strategic and multilayered approach. The same applies to online piracy. Unauthorized streaming websites that offer free access to movies, TV shows, or sports broadcasts have become widespread in Thailand. To combat this, rightsholders can request website blocking under the Computer Crime Act, through the Ministry of Digital Economy and Society and the courts. Once requests are approved, internet service providers are ordered to block access to infringing sites. Blocking orders can be effective in disrupting large-scale piracy operations, but they also face limitations—pirate sites frequently reappear under new domains. Strategic Protection Whether the infringing material is physical counterfeit goods or intangible streaming content,
Read More
September 4, 2025
On June 6, 2025, the Superior People’s Court in Hanoi overturned a non-use cancellation decision by the Intellectual Property Office of Vietnam, a rare and impactful occurrence. In a ruling that may help clarify the enforcement of Vietnam’s IP Law, the court held that valid trademark use can be established through commercial arrangements where the brand owner maintains actual control over the use of the mark, and is not confined to relationships governed by a so-called “formal license agreement. Background: Cross-Border Use, Local Challenge A Singapore company owns a well-known brand of consumer products that has gained recognition across Southeast Asia. In recent years, the brand has been targeted by several unauthorized trademark filings in Vietnam. In one such instance, a local Vietnamese trading company—previously linked to the production and export of counterfeit goods to neighboring countries—filed a non-use cancellation against the Singapore company’s mark and sought to register it under its own name. If the cancellation had been upheld, it would have enabled a complete hijacking of the brand. The IP holder operates in Vietnam through a structured cross-border supply chain. Under an agreement between two related foreign entities, one of which managed regional operations, production orders were placed through a designated Vietnamese company. While the Vietnamese manufacturer was not a party to the agreement, its role in using the mark was recognized and governed by internal and commercial documentation. The Vietnamese manufacturer lawfully obtained the necessary permits, regulatory approvals, and customs clearances for producing the goods in Vietnam. These activities were supported by banking records and internal communications, evidencing active, continuous use of the mark in Vietnam. However, the IP Office concluded that this use did not meet the statutory criteria because the Vietnamese manufacturer did not have a direct license agreement with the brand owner, as
Read More
August 25, 2025
Indonesia’s current regulations on franchises, as stipulated under Government Regulation No. 35/2024 on Franchising and its implementing regulation, Ministry of Trade (MOT) Regulation No. 71/2019 regarding Implementation of Franchising, highlight fundamental changes in franchise registration. These changes have introduced additional complexities and challenges in the franchise registration procedure, making it more difficult for franchise owners to navigate the process. New procedure Franchise applications are still submitted through the Online Single Submission (OSS) portal of the Capital Investment Coordinating Board (BKPM). However, the new procedure requires each applicant, including foreign franchisors, to have an OSS account and a business registration number (NIB) issued by BKPM. An application for franchise registration must be submitted under the applicant’s own account—submissions can no longer be made through the account of a consultant. Once a franchise application is submitted, the authority will distribute the submission to the MOT—the authorized ministry for franchise registration. Any notification or decision upon the registration made by the MOT will be available in the OSS system. Applicants should regularly monitor the status of the franchise application because no notifications will be sent to applicants to alert them of any deficiency. Here is the summary of the new procedure for franchisors: Notable Requirements The disclosure document, or prospectus, is the key focus for the MOT in examining a franchise registration for a franchisor. This document is subject to thorough scrutiny by the MOT to ensure that all mandatory information meets the requirements set in the franchise regulations. The current regulations specifically require that the mandatory clause “business system” in the prospectus cover operational standards and procedures, which should include human resource management, administration, operational management, standard operating methods, business location selection, business premises design, employee requirements, and marketing strategies. Other clauses that are equally important to pay attention to are:
Read More