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​ 

April 21, 2026
Vietnam continues to refine its intellectual property framework to align with the 2025 amendments to the Law on Intellectual Property (IP Law). On March 31, 2026, the government issued Decree 100/2026/ND-CP (Decree 100), which substantially amends Decree 65/2023/ND-CP detailing the implementation of the IP Law (Decree 65). On the same day, the Ministry of Science and Technology released Circular 10/2026/TT-BKHCN (Circular 10), providing detailed procedural guidance and new forms. Both instruments took effect on April 1, 2026, along with the amended IP Law. While the updates touch on every IP right, trademark owners and brand strategists will find several practical and forward-looking changes that directly affect filing strategy, examination timelines, portfolio management, and enforcement readiness. 1. Fast-Track Substantive Examination for Eligible Applications One of the most business-friendly innovations is the new fast-track substantive examination pathway for applications meeting specified eligibility criteria. Successful fast-track applications enjoy a shortened substantive examination period of three months. This offers a significant competitive edge for tech-driven or regulated-sector brands. If the mark is identical or similar to a mark in another person’s trademark application with an earlier filing date in the case of a priority application that has not yet been processed, the fast-track process will return to the ordinary process. However, the law does not touch on cases where marks under fast-track examination face office action due to other reasons (i.e. lack of distinctiveness, confusingly similar to others’ copyright, trade name, industrial design, etc.) 2. AI-Generated Trademarks Receive Clear Protection Pathway Decree 100 explicitly addresses the use of artificial intelligence (AI) in IP creation, amending Article 10a of Decree 65 to confirm that trademarks created with AI systems are fully protectable, provided they meet the standard requirements of registration. Trademarks face no additional “human authorship” hurdle (unlike patents or industrial designs). Brand owners
Read More
April 20, 2026
Myanmar’s industrial design registration regime has been steadily gaining momentum since the country officially began accepting applications under the Industrial Design Law of 2019. The Industrial Design Division of Myanmar’s Intellectual Property Department (IPD) has actively advanced examination and registration procedures, and as of March 2026, approximately 300 industrial design applications have been published in the IPD’s publicly accessible database—a meaningful milestone in the development of Myanmar’s emerging intellectual property framework. This figure reflects only published applications; additional filings remain pending and will be published after the conclusion of ongoing examination. Filing Requirements in Practice Compliance with a defined set of mandatory requirements is the foundation for filing a valid design application. These mandatory particulars must be provided at the time of filing in order to establish a filing date. These include the applicant’s and creator’s identifying details, a notarized appointment of representative form, the Locarno Classification of the associated product, and a set of graphic representations of the design across multiple standard views. Applicants must also provide a written description of the design and, where applicable, information relating to any priority claim or request for deferred publication. Filing fees are payable at the time of submission. Beyond these core requirements, applicants typically need to provide supplementary documentation, either at the time of filing or in response to a formality examination. This may include evidence of the applicant’s legal entitlement to the design—particularly where the applicant and creator are different parties—as well as supporting corporate and authorization documents. Where priority rights are claimed, the relevant documents must generally be submitted within three months of the Myanmar filing date, with certified English translations required for any non-English priority applications. The supplementary requirements may vary depending on the nature of the application and the examiner’s requests during the formality examination process.
Read More
April 3, 2026
On March 16, 2026, Vietnam’s Ministry of Public Security released a draft version of a new Decree on the Prevention and Combating of Cybercrime and High-Tech Crime to replace the currently effective Decree 25/2014/ND-CP. In the draft, the ministry has proposed a comprehensive regulatory framework aimed at addressing violations occurring within the cybersecurity domain, including measures related to intellectual property. Acts of Online IP Infringement Article 9 of the draft decree notably introduces specific provisions addressing online intellectual property infringement, with detailed lists of acts considered to constitute infringement in the online environment. Copyright and related rights infringement includes: Uploading or sharing works, performances, sound recordings, video recordings, broadcasts, computer programs, software, research, documents, theses, or other intellectual creations on digital platforms without the consent of the rights holder. Unauthorized livestreaming of copyrighted television programs, sporting events, or artistic performances. Uploading, sharing, storing, transmitting, or providing links to infringing works or digital content via websites, social networks, applications, or digital platforms. Providing or using software, tools, devices, or access codes to circumvent technological protection measures or evade lawful control mechanisms implemented by rights holders. Using artificial intelligence (AI) tools to replicate the ideas or structure of another person’s work without significant new creativity or without proper attribution, thereby causing damage to the original author. Industrial property infringement includes: Manufacturing, trading, advertising, or distributing counterfeit goods bearing counterfeit trademarks, geographical indications, or industrial designs, as well as goods infringing industrial property rights through online platforms. Unauthorized registration, appropriation, or use of domain names, account names, or digital identifiers that create confusion regarding the rights holder or the origin of goods or services. Producing, using, or offering for sale products containing all or part of a patented invention via online platforms. Advertising or introducing products with technical features or characteristics identical
Read More
March 31, 2026
Vietnam’s most recent amendment of the Law on Intellectual Property (amended IP Law), passed by the National Assembly on December 10, 2025, and effective from April 1, 2026, represents one of the most significant updates to the IP Law in recent years. This amendment modernizes the IP framework, moving a step closer to international standards, while addressing the realities of Vietnam’s booming digital economy, e-commerce growth, and increasing foreign investment, which is crucial for Vietnam’s objective of complete economic transformation. For trademark practitioners, brand owners, and businesses, the changes are largely positive, as they promise faster processes, stronger enforcement tools—especially for online actions—and better commercialization options. However, they also introduce stricter requirements and a need for proactive preparation. Below are some of the most noteworthy changes in the amended IP Law related to trademarks. Significantly Shortened Timelines and Introduction of Fast-Track Examination The statutory timelines under the amended IP Law have been notably reduced: Substantive examination for trademarks is shortened from 9 months to 5 months (from the publication date). The publication period is shortened from 2 months to 1 month. A new fast-track mechanism allows substantive examination in as little as 3 months for qualifying applications (e.g., marks in actual use, facing infringement threats, or meeting government-specified criteria; details to be clarified in implementing regulations). The opposition period is shortened from 5 months to 3 months from publication. This is arguably the most welcome change. Vietnam’s IP Office has long faced criticism for lengthy backlogs, often stretching the trademark registration process to 18–24 months or more. The new timelines bring Vietnam closer to efficient systems. The fast-track option is particularly smart for high-value or urgent cases such as counterfeit threats on e-commerce platforms. However, careful preparation is mandatory for flawless applications from the start to maximize fast-track eligibility.
Read More