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

February 26, 2013

Counterfeit Automotive Crackdown

Subscribe to Updates
Informed Counsel

The past several years have witnessed continuing growth in the presence of counterfeit automotive parts in the Thai market. Dissatisfied with this trend, a Japanese automotive spare parts supplier decided that it would no longer tolerate the damage caused to its business and reputation by the illegal trade of fake goods.

Unlike with counterfeit T-shirts or handbags, buyers are rarely aware of the authentication method for automotive parts. In some cases, it is even difficult for sales representatives and experienced technicians, who have handled the products for years, to distinguish the counterfeit goods from the genuine. Adding to the complex situation, it appears that many of the shops that sell genuine spare parts occasionally also deliver counterfeit products to their customers.

SEIKEN brand has been well known for high-quality brake and clutch parts in the Thai market for a number of years. Despite being a well-recognized brand, it could not avoid the inevitability of counterfeit products entering into the market. After carefully evaluating the situation, our client decided to launch its very first anti-counterfeiting campaign to protect its IP rights and its valuable customers.

The campaign began with an in-depth market investigation. The Tilleke & Gibbins surveillance team monitored the business activities of suspected shops located in Worachak area, also known as the Automotive District, and tracked down the sources of the counterfeit SEIKEN brake and clutch parts. The first target that our investigation team uncovered was a factory located in a Bangkok suburb that produces brake and clutch parts, which also has its own brand. On the day that we conducted a police raid, we were surprised to see that approximately 70 to 80 percent of the products in stock were counterfeit brake and clutch parts bearing the SEIKEN brand; the company’s own brand was merely a cover. The team ended up seizing more than 200,000 counterfeit products, including molds and machinery from this factory.

After the raid, the threat of an aggressive civil suit led the owner of the factory to agree to a favorable settlement for our client. The infringer agreed to pay compensation and even gave us leads to two other factories that were producing counterfeit SEIKEN brake and clutch parts.

Part of this compensation was then reinvested into an investigation of the two additional suspected companies. The investigation results showed that the leads provided by the first infringer were reliable. Our investigation team located a second target, a wholesaler near Chinatown. This target distributed copycat brake and clutch parts bearing an imitating mark of our client’s SEIKEN trademark with a similar packaging design. More than 20,000 items were seized from this target as a result of the police raid, and the owner of the shop was charged with the imitation of a registered trademark.

After the two raids were carried out, rumors about our enforcement activities spread throughout the auto parts market, and the volume of counterfeit SEIKEN brake and clutch parts decreased significantly. The third target, which was under investigation at the time, was being extremely cautious, and ceased production for a short period of time. Nevertheless, we managed to conduct a successful raid a few months later, seizing over 300,000 counterfeit SEIKEN brake and clutch parts, including unfinished products and packages from their office and distribution center.

To date, over THB 10 million worth of counterfeit products have already been removed from the market as a result of these three cases, and these illegal products will be destroyed once the court judgments are finalized.

Effective IP enforcement requires a sustained ongoing effort. To this end, our client is building on its success thus far by continuing to focus on suppressing and combating counterfeit goods in Thailand. The reality is that as long as the SEIKEN brand is famous and in demand, people will try to take advantage and make a profit from it. Therefore, we are continuing to work closely with our client on additional investigations to deliver more successful outcomes in the near future.

Download Full Article
Related Professionals

Practices

Intellectual Property

Location

RELATED INSIGHTS​ 

September 14, 2026
Myanmar’s first-to-file trademark registration regime under the Trademark Law 2019—which became fully operational in April 2023—provides mark owners with enhanced legal protection compared with the country’s former system. Correspondingly, the current system imposes more rigorous statutory requirements for obtaining, maintaining, and enforcing rights in marks. In this first-to-file trademark registration system, however, evidence of use remains particularly significant, as it may establish acquired distinctiveness, support a claim that a mark is well-known, and strengthen the owner’s position in both registration and enforcement proceedings. Accordingly, it can be said that this framework is underpinned by three key concepts: distinctiveness, well-known status, and, importantly, use of the trademark. Trademark Distinctiveness Under the Trademark Law, signs that lack distinctiveness are generally ineligible for mark protection. These signs include generic terms, basic shapes, unstylized single letters or numerals, and signs that merely describe the kind, quality, quantity, intended purpose, value, geographical origin, production time, or other characteristics of the relevant goods or services. However, a mark that would otherwise be refused on distinctiveness or descriptiveness grounds may be registrable if it has acquired distinctiveness through its use prior to the filing date. To show this, the applicant must demonstrate that the mark became distinctive to relevant consumers through continuous, exclusive, and good-faith use in trade within Myanmar. The burden of proving acquired distinctiveness rests with the mark owner. Accordingly, sufficient evidence demonstrating both use of the mark and the level of consumer recognition attained should be prepared in advance. Well-Known Mark Criteria Myanmar’s Trademark Rules, which govern the substantive examination of mark registration applications, establish criteria for determining well-known marks, aligned with international standards. Where an applicant claims well-known status—whether to overcome a refusal on relative grounds or to oppose a third party’s registration—the registrar will assess the claim based on the following
Read More
September 14, 2026
On August 23, 2026, Vietnam’s National Assembly passed Law No. 11/2026/QH16, amending the country’s Customs Law with effect from March 1, 2027. The amendments represent a substantial reform of Vietnam’s customs-based intellectual property enforcement regime. The reforms come amid considerable external pressure. In its 2026 Special 301 review, the US Trade Representative (USTR) designated Vietnam a “priority foreign country,” citing widespread counterfeiting, weak border enforcement, limited ex officio customs powers, and the absence of controls over goods in transit. Vietnam’s legislative response signals a commitment to bringing its border enforcement practices into line with international expectations. For IP rights holders operating in or through Vietnam, the amended law introduces several tools that substantially strengthen enforcement options at the border. Closing the Transit Gap One of the most consequential amendments is the extension of IP-related customs enforcement to goods in transit. Previously, Vietnam’s customs regime applied IP controls only to goods being imported or exported, a gap the USTR had specifically identified as enabling infringing goods to pass through Vietnamese ports with impunity. Vietnam’s geographic position as a logistics hub for Southeast Asia means that substantial volumes of goods transit its ports and free-trade zones. Extending enforcement to cover these shipments brings Vietnam closer to the standard set by the EU’s customs enforcement regulation and addresses a longstanding concern of multinational brand owners whose goods are frequently counterfeited in the region. Strengthened Suspension and Ex Officio Powers The amended law introduces a dual-track suspension mechanism (Article 73(2)). Customs authorities will suspend clearance upon request by an IP rights holder (or authorized representative) who provides evidence of IP ownership, evidence of infringement, and a financial guarantee. Customs can now proactively suspend clearance on an ex officio basis if, during inspection and monitoring, they discover “clear grounds” to suspect that imported, exported,
Read More
September 7, 2026
Indonesia’s Constitutional Court (Mahkamah Konstitusi) has reinstated a key provision limiting pharmaceutical patent protection, signaling a renewed commitment to balancing patent rights with public access to medicines. In its ruling to Case No. 255/PUU-XXIII/2025, the court partially granted a petition for judicial review of Law No. 65 of 2024, which had amended the country’s Patent Law, and ordered the restoration of a provision that had excluded certain pharmaceutical inventions from patentability. The decision took effect immediately upon its pronouncement at the court’s plenary session on August 28, 2026. Background The petition challenged the removal of article 4(f) from Law No. 13 of 2016 concerning Patents (Patent Law), as amended by Law No. 65 of 2024. Article 4(f) had excluded from patentability certain inventions relating to new uses of known substances. The petitioners argued that removing this provision would open the door to patent protection for second medical use inventions and facilitate patent evergreening—practices that can extend exclusivity periods, delay generic market entry, and reduce public access to affordable medicines. The petitioners included several patient advocacy and public-interest organizations: the Indonesian Dialysis Patients Community Association, the Indonesian Association of Drug Abuse Victims (PKNI), the Indonesian Pulmonary Hypertension Foundation (YHPI), the Rekat Peduli Indonesia Foundation, and the Indonesian Positive Women’s Association (IPPI), along with the Indonesia for Global Justice Association and four individual petitioners. The petitioners also challenged the constitutionality of the phrase “interested party” in article 70(1) of the Patent Law, arguing that it should be construed expressly to clarify who has standing to appeal a decision to grant a patent before the Board of Patent Appeal, and to allow a broader range of parties—such as patent holders, licensees, consumer organizations, prosecutors, aggrieved third parties, and others who may suffer direct or indirect harm from the grant of a patent—to
Read More
September 2, 2026
Thailand and China have a longstanding and significant trade relationship, which increasingly extends to e-commerce and digitally enabled supply chains. While these channels create new opportunities for businesses to reach consumers across borders, their growth also brings greater exposure to intellectual property (IP) infringement across jurisdictions and online platforms. Effective cooperation between the two countries’ enforcement authorities has therefore become increasingly important. To strengthen cooperation in this area, Thailand and China signed a memorandum of understanding (MOU) on IP enforcement in Beijing on July 20, 2026, during the Thai prime minister’s official visit to China. Officially titled “Memorandum of Understanding Between the State Administration for Market Regulation of the People’s Republic of China and the Ministry of Commerce of the Kingdom of Thailand on Cooperation in the Field of Intellectual Property Enforcement,” the MOU forms part of a broader bilateral agenda covering industrial and supply chains, participation by micro, small, and medium-sized enterprises (MSMEs), cooperation associated with the ASEAN–China Free Trade Area 3.0, and progress on the registration of Thai geographical indications in China. The MOU establishes a bilateral framework for cooperation and coordination in five broad areas: Strengthening dialogue in IP enforcement; Enhancing information sharing; Facilitating the enforcement of IP rights in cases arising in the parties’ domestic markets and on online platforms, in accordance with their respective domestic laws; Promoting cooperation in IP enforcement training and human resource development; and Undertaking other cooperation activities agreed upon by both sides. The Department of Intellectual Property (DIP) will serve as the principal coordinating agency for Thailand, while the Bureau of Law Enforcement and Inspection in China’s State Administration for Market Regulation (SAMR) will serve in that role for China. The framework is particularly relevant to the growth of e-commerce, as it covers infringement in the domestic markets and on
Read More