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​ 

July 9, 2026
Recycling, upcycling, and refill-packaging models are now widely promoted as ways to reduce waste, lower carbon emissions, and respond to consumer demand for sustainable products. However, complications arise when these environmentally driven trends intersect with intellectual property law—particularly where reused or altered packaging continues to display third parties’ registered trademarks. Adding to this complexity, Thailand’s draft Sustainable Packaging Management Act aims to introduce new environmental compliance obligations that businesses must navigate alongside existing trademark concerns. Recycling and upcycling packaging may infringe trademark rights, especially in cases not protected by the first-sale doctrine—the principle that a trademark owner’s rights over a particular mark-bearing product end once the owner first sells it. Furthermore, even refill packaging carries legal risk due to specific statutory prohibitions under Thai law. Compounding these challenges, the draft Sustainable Packaging Management Act will impose extended producer responsibility (EPR) obligations on manufacturers and brand owners, requiring them to manage packaging throughout its lifecycle. These overlapping legal frameworks could deter manufacturers from pursuing ESG-aligned business models unless businesses understand how to navigate both trademark and environmental requirements. Under Thai law, this issue remains uncertain because the Trademark Act does not expressly codify the first sale doctrine, also known as the exhaustion of trademark rights. Generally, this doctrine provides that once a trademark owner has lawfully sold goods bearing its trademark, the owner’s right to control further resale of those particular goods is exhausted. The rationale is that the owner has already received commercial benefit from the first authorized sale; therefore, the purchaser should be free to resell or otherwise dispose of the goods. Although the doctrine is not expressly codified in the Trademark Act, Thai courts have recognized it in relation to genuine goods and parallel imports, as seen in a Supreme Court Judgment No. 2817/2543 in which the
Read More
July 6, 2026
Indonesia’s regulation on reporting online intellectual property (IP) infringement provides comprehensive procedural guidance for IP rights holders and their licensees in reporting online infringement complaints. Issued in December 2025 by the Ministry of Law as Regulation No. 47 of 2025 regarding Handling of Intellectual Property Infringement Reports in Electronic Systems, this regulation covers all types of IP rights. It also specifies documentation when reporting infringement, and lays out the procedures for examination, verification, and enforcement actions. Submission of Complaints Complainants may submit reports through the online system of the Directorate General of Intellectual Property (DGIP) or in person at the DGIP office. Complaints may also be filed through an authorized proxy. Under the regulation, complainants are required to provide the following information and documents: Personal details of the complainant; Brief description of the protected work or subject matter (i.e., type of IP and name or address of the infringing website, portal, account, or application, or a link to the location of the infringing content); Complete description of the alleged infringement; Certificate of registration or recordal of the relevant IP; Recordal of IP license agreement, if any; and Other supporting evidence. Verification and Examination Process Upon receiving a complaint, the responsible formality officer may request clarification or additional supporting documents. In the latter case, the complainant must then submit the necessary administrative documents within 14 days of the notification date. Once the documentation is deemed complete and sufficient, the case will be formally registered. Subsequently, the DGIP will establish a verification team to handle online IP violations, which will include the Civil Servant Investigator (PPNS), the Ministry of Communication and Digital Affairs, experts with relevant expertise in IP, and representatives from related associations such as AVISI (Indonesian Video Streaming Association). After examining the report, the team will prepare the Minutes
Read More
June 30, 2026
Customs recordation is an enforcement mechanism in Myanmar that enables intellectual property (IP) rights holders to seek prevention of the cross-border movement of infringing goods. The enactment of Myanmar’s IP laws in 2019 has enabled customs recordation for registered marks and copyrights under the Trademark Law 2019 and the Copyright Law 2019. By contrast, the Patent Law 2019 and the Industrial Design Law 2019 do not provide a practical framework for customs recordation, and accordingly such rights are not subject to the customs recordation regime. Under the Trademark Law 2019, rights holders may apply for customs recordation and may also ask the Customs Department to suspend the release of goods suspected of bearing counterfeit marks. Likewise, the Copyright Law 2019 allows for customs intervention in relation to pirated works. These provisions reflect Myanmar’s gradual alignment with international standards on border measures, although the implementation framework remains at a relatively early stage of development. Customs Recordation Pursuant to the Trademark Law 2019 and the Copyright Law 2019, the relevant authorities have issued customs rules concerning the protection of registered marks and copyrights. In practice, the process generally begins with the submission of an application to the Customs Department together with supporting documentation. This typically includes proof of registration in Myanmar; details of the rights holder, applicant, and any authorized representative; and a comprehensive description of the genuine goods. Product identification materials—such as photographs, packaging samples, and distinguishing features—are particularly important in helping customs officers identify suspected infringing goods. A recordation remains valid for two years from the date of approval. It may be renewed for additional two-year terms, provided that the renewal application is filed within the thirty days prior to expiry for marks and up to thirty days in advance of the expiry date for copyrights, in accordance with
Read More
June 24, 2026
Patent enablement requirements are provided under Article 102 of Vietnam’s Law on Intellectual Property (IP Law). In particular, a patent specification must “fully and clearly disclose the nature of the invention to such an extent that, based on the specification, a person having ordinary skill in the relevant art can implement the invention.” In pharmaceutical and biotechnology patents, this requirement is more complicated and subject to more rigorous assessment. The Patent Examination Guidelines (Guidelines) of the Intellectual Property Office of Vietnam (IP Office) were amended in March 2026 to introduce Annexes III and IV for the pharmaceutical and biotechnology sectors, in which Annex III provides detailed guidelines on the assessment of specification requirements. These amendments were made under a project for strengthening capacity in industrial property examination between the Japan International Cooperation Agency (JICA) and the IP Office. Annex III provides detailed instructions on how examiners assess enablement in a pharmaceutical or biotechnology application, and offers examples of acceptable and unacceptable descriptions with regard to the enablement aspect. Enablement Requirements in Pharma and Biotech Patents Article 12.7 of Circular 10/2026/TT-BKHCN (Circular 10) adds to the requirements of Article 102 of the IP Law that the description must demonstrate the novelty, inventive step, and industrial applicability of the technical solution. For pharmaceutical composition subject matters, Article 12.9 of Circular 10 sets out that the description must present the results of clinical trials and/or the pharmacological effects of the claimed pharmaceutical composition, and must include at least the following information: Substance/mixture used. Testing method (system) employed. Information on the test results. Correlation between the pharmacological effects obtained from the tests and the application of the pharmaceutical product in the prevention, diagnosis, and treatment of diseases. The Guidelines note that pharmacological study results should be presented in a quantified manner, and pharmacological
Read More