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 27, 2014

Countering IP Infringement on the Internet: Online Monitoring

Subscribe to Updates
Informed Counsel

The rise of mobile technology—from laptops to smart phones to tablets—has ushered in a shift among consumers away from shopping at brick-and-mortar stores toward purchasing products online. Brand owners, in response, have moved huge resources toward online sales strategies. So it should be no surprise that counterfeiters, too, have mobilized to take advantage of the growing market for products on the Internet. As more and more commerce occurs on the Web, the number of fakes being sold online has also drastically risen.

In addition to this global trend, local events here in Thailand may also be exacerbating the online infringement situation. Thailand has been mired in political unrest since November 2013, leaving the police with less time to devote to intellectual property infringement matters. There has been a notable decrease in the number of intellectual property raid actions and Customs cases that have been initiated since the political unrest began.

In this context, intellectual property owners need to consider what actions they can take—at their own initiative—to remain vigilant in their struggle against counterfeiting, while waiting for the political situation in Thailand to stabilize. One tactic that can reap immediate rewards is to redeploy resources to counter online infringement.

To assist brand owners in these efforts, Tilleke & Gibbins has a dedicated investigation team focused on identifying and disrupting IP infringement online. Our team focuses on the two core elements of online infringement:

  1. Cybersquatting, where infringers use a registered trademark belonging to another party as their domain name or part of their domain name; and
  2. The sale of fake goods via specific websites.

Our investigation process uncovers detailed information about the infringer and the nature of the infringement. With this evidence in hand, we work with the brand owner to send a cease-and-desist letter to the infringer, ordering them to immediately stop their infringing activities.

For high-value targets, a warning letter may not be sufficient. Using advanced investigative techniques, we collaborate with the IP owner to unearth detailed information about the infringer in order to learn more about the source of the goods. This type of investigation can help to trace online supply chains, leading to the discovery of hubs for the distribution of fake goods.

While these investigative techniques are important, we also encourage IP owners to pursue an integrated approach toward stopping online infringement. This can be most effective when actions aren’t limited to relying solely on intellectual property law, but instead bring together a range of legal options to disrupt infringers’ activities.

The sale of illegal medical devices online provides a good example of how such an approach can be successful. Through our investigation team’s routine monitoring of online infringement activities, we became aware that a large number of medical devices were being promoted on the Internet as legitimately certified in Thailand, when, in fact, they have only been certified in other countries. Such a claim is not a violation of intellectual property law, but it does open the door to other types of actions under other laws. To address this issue, the legitimate intellectual property owner can pursue a claim of regulatory infringement by taking action against the seller for advertising the sale of food, medicine, and medical equipment using untrue information that is deceptive to consumers. This approach can be supported by the findings of Red Case Sor. 33/2554, in which the court deemed that such an act constitutes an offense under Thailand’s Act on Computer Crimes and found the defendant guilty.

This combined legal and regulatory approach can be easily replicated across a wide range of tightly regulated products, including food, drugs, agrichemicals, and more, in order to provide new opportunities for IP owners to defend their rights. A well-coordinated online-monitoring campaign—one that bridges the gap between intellectual property law and other regulatory options—can be a very cost-effective strategy for brand owners to uncover and prevent intellectual property infringement on the Internet.

Download Full Article
Related Professionals

Practices

Intellectual Property

Location

RELATED INSIGHTS​ 

August 13, 2026
Modern agricultural machinery is no longer purely mechanical but instead technology dependent. Modern tractors, harvesters, and other farm equipment increasingly incorporate embedded software, electronic control units, sensors, and digital diagnostic systems. While such technologies enhance efficiency, productivity, and precision farming, they also affect the manner of equipment repair and maintenance. As a result, farmers and independent repair providers may have little practical choice but to rely on authorized dealers, even for routine maintenance and repairs. Section 36 of Thailand’s Patent Act reflects the principle that the authorized sale of a patented invention usually exhausts the exclusive right of the patent owner over the specific product. This means that upon legal sale of the patented product, it can typically be used or resold without further authorization from the patent holder. This principle is relatively straightforward when applied to traditional mechanical equipment. Ownership of a machine ordinarily carries with it the practical ability to diagnose faults, replace worn parts, and restore the equipment to working order. Modern agricultural machinery, however, increasingly depends on embedded software, proprietary diagnostic systems, firmware updates, and other digital resources that may remain under the control of the manufacturer or patent holder. This tension lies within the “right to repair” debate. In the United States, on July 8, 2026, the Federal Trade Commission and five states announced a settlement with Deere & Company resolving allegations that Deere had unlawfully restricted farmers’ and independent repair providers’ ability to repair their equipment. Under the terms of the settlement, for the next ten years, Deere must provide repair resources, including software capabilities, on terms equivalent to those provided to authorized dealers. The Deere settlement highlights that the nature of ownership is changing, but legal concepts have not kept pace. Traditional patent-law concepts, including patent exhaustion, were developed with physical products
Read More
August 10, 2026
Thailand has finalized its social media KYC (“know your customer”) rules under Notification of the Electronic Transactions Commission on Measures to Prevent Technological Crimes for Social Media Service Providers (No. 2), which was published in the Government Gazette on May 5, 2026, and will take effect on November 1, 2026. While an early draft of the notification proposed requiring social media platforms to arrange identification of every user account, the final notification is significantly more targeted, focusing on paid online advertising and advertiser identity verification. Though the regulatory initiative primarily aims to combat online fraud and technology-related crimes, it also has important consequences for intellectual property enforcement, because the verified platform records that will be generated under the new requirements can help IP rights holders to identify anonymous online infringers. Key Regulatory Mandates The notification requires social media service providers to verify the identity of advertisers before their paid advertisements are published and disseminated in Thailand through social media, regardless of whether the advertising fees come from the advertisers or third parties. Verification of an advertiser is valid for one year, after which verification would have to be performed again before the platform could publish additional paid advertisements from the advertiser. Permitted verification methods are specified under the notification. A platform may verify an advertiser by checking identity evidence and confirming the connection between the advertiser and that identity evidence, with the notification giving facial comparison against certain government-issued identity documents as an example. Alternatively, platforms may verify advertisers through a digital identity verification and authentication system with an identity-proofing assurance level not lower than the level prescribed by Thailand’s Electronic Transactions Commission. The notification further requires platforms to retain only the advertiser’s information necessary to identify the advertiser, beginning from the start of the advertising activity and for
Read More
August 6, 2026
Introduction: A Trademark Paradox in Sustainable Packaging Walk into any Thai supermarket, and the label-free water bottle is no longer a novelty. Thailand’s packaging market, valued at approximately USD 15.68 billion in 2025, is shifting toward minimalist, plastic-light designs as ESG pressures reshape how brands present their products. The country generated roughly 5.68 million tons of plastic waste in 2021, with a recycling rate of only 19 percent, and regulators are now considering rules that would allow label-free bottled water relying on embossing, laser printing, or QR codes instead of wrap-around labels. As packaging itself becomes the brand identifier, a paradox emerges: designs built to say the least often struggle hardest for protection under Thai intellectual property law. The Trademark Barrier: When Shape Is Not Enough Section 7, paragraph 2(10) of the Thai Trademark Act deems a shape distinctive only if it is not the natural form of the goods, is not necessary to achieve a technical result, and does not add value to the goods. The Department of Intellectual Property’s 2022 examination guidelines apply this test conservatively, as the following examples illustrate. A plain water bottle relying on subtle contours to signal its brand is typically read as just another bottle, not a source identifier. Acquired distinctiveness offers a theoretical escape route, but it demands extensive evidence of sales, advertising, and consumer recognition—an especially heavy burden for new entrants whose minimalist packaging has not yet achieved market prominence. The result is a structural bias against precisely the design innovation that sustainability goals are meant to encourage. Design Patents: A Partial, Imperfect Substitute Design patent protection, covering a product’s shape, configuration, or ornamentation, appears to offer an alternative route. In practice, it is constrained by the same forces driving the minimalist trend. Because many brands converge on similar solutions—clear
Read More
August 4, 2026
Intellectual property (IP) protection sometimes hinges on fame and recognition. However, this alone will not always be sufficient to overcome an IP dispute when it involves contractual obligations or registered rights. Below are five cases from around the world that tackle some of the basic issues in IP registration, ownership, commercialization, and enforcement. 1. USA: Taylor Swift Trademark Application Refused Taylor Swift recently filed a trademark application to register “The Life of a Showgirl,” which is the title of her 12th studio album. When examining a trademark application, the examiner considers various factors before deciding whether it should be registered. One of these factors is whether there is a likelihood of confusion (i.e., would a regular consumer mistake the origin of the trademark). In Taylor Swift’s case, the US Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO) decided that that there would be a risk of confusion. This decision was based on the existing registered trademark, “Confessions of a Showgirl,” owned by Maren Wade, which was registered in 2015. The USPTO refused Taylor Swift’s application based on the shared key distinctive element “of a showgirl,” the lack of sufficient distinguishing terms, the marks being used in overlapping markets (entertainment and performances), and because consumers may assume a common commercial source. Maren Wade then filed a lawsuit in California against Taylor Swift and her affiliated companies, arguing that Taylor Swfit’s branding is confusingly similar in structure, wording, and overall commercial impression to her registered mark. She is also drawing on the USPTO’s refusal of Taylor Swift’s application to support her argument of a likelihood of confusion. A judgment has not yet been reached in this case, but it serves as an important reminder of the importance of satisfying the essential elements required for IP registration. 2. Australia: Katy Perry v. Katie Perry In
Read More