2025年3月，泰国中央知识产权和国际贸易法院（IP&IT Court，以下简称“知识产权和国际贸易法院”）作出一项里程碑式判决，判定中国领先的咖啡零售连锁品牌瑞幸咖啡（Luckin Coffee）胜诉。此前，瑞幸咖啡于2021年至2023年间卷入的商标诉讼曾引发广泛的公众关注，并令外界对合法外国品牌所有人在泰国所能获得的保护产生疑问。该判决标志着局面的重大逆转。 在随后的一项重大进展中，泰国专门案件上诉法院（Court of Appeal for Specialized Cases）现已全面维持知识产权和国际贸易法院的判决。 该上诉判决为泰国最受瞩目的商标纠纷之一带来了明确结论。尤为重要的是，本案是泰国首例正式承认商标抢注原则的案件。上诉法院确认瑞幸咖啡对争议商标享有更优权利，并下令撤销被告的商标注册——这是“更优权利”原则的一次关键适用。法院还维持了一审判决的高额损害赔偿，为评估系统性商标抢注所造成的损害提供了重要指引。 获奖判决获全面维持 一审判决的意义不仅限于瑞幸咖啡案本身的结果。该判决随后荣获知识产权和国际贸易法院2025年度优秀判决奖，体现了本案所涉问题的复杂性、新颖性及重要法律意义。 尽管如此，被告仍提起上诉，对知识产权和国际贸易法院判决的若干关键方面提出异议。瑞幸咖啡继续委托Tilleke & Gibbins律师事务所担任其唯一代理律师，处理本案的上诉程序。 在审议被告的上诉理由及瑞幸咖啡的答辩意见后，上诉法院全面维持一审判决。该判决于2026年7月8日宣判。 对商标享有更优权利 上诉法院确认瑞幸咖啡享有更优权利。相关裁令包括：撤销被告的商标注册；禁止被告在其咖啡业务中使用“Luckin Coffee”商标、中文“瑞幸咖啡”以及“鹿标识”；并责令被告变更其企业名称及公司印章。 商标抢注案件损害赔偿的新思路 上诉判决最重要的方面之一，是上诉法院维持了泰国知识产权史上金额最高的损害赔偿判决。上诉法院维持了1,000万泰铢的损害赔偿，以及自起诉之日起至被告停止侵权行为之日止每日10万泰铢的持续性损害赔偿。截至判决之日，持续天数已达856天，持续性损害赔偿金额逾8,500万泰铢，赔偿总额逾9,500万泰铢（约合300万美元）——这是泰国法院在知识产权案件中判处的有史以来最高赔偿额。 一直以来，在泰国商标侵权案件中获得高额损害赔偿颇具挑战，尤其是在实际经济损失难以量化的情况下。商标抢注案件所涉问题则更为复杂。其造成的损害可能不仅限于销售分流或利润损失，还包括市场进入受阻、业务扩张受限、商誉受损，以及为夺回合法商标权利所付出的成本。 瑞幸咖啡案判决表明，损害赔偿的评估无需局限于对直接销售损失的狭义计算。 上诉法院在作出裁决时，综合考量了被告行为的整体情况及严重程度，包括侵权行为的性质和范围，及其对瑞幸咖啡商标权利和商业利益造成的广泛影响。高额的一次性损害赔偿，加上直至侵权停止之日的每日持续性赔偿，体现了一种认可系统性商标抢注所造成的独特且持续性损害的裁判思路。 通过全面维持损害赔偿判决，上诉法院认可了这一思路。该判决确认，商标抢注造成的商业损害可基于恶意行为的整体性质、严重程度及持续影响进行评估。对于今后真实商业损害难以通过传统的销售或利润损失计算方式加以衡量的商标维权案件，该判决提供了重要参考。 疑虑尽消 此前涉及瑞幸咖啡的诉讼，曾引发外界对合法国际品牌所有人在泰国所受保护的广泛讨论。一审判决解决了商标归属这一实质性问题，确认瑞幸咖啡享有在先及更优权利，为撤销不当注册的商标确立了明确先例。 上诉法院现已全面维持该判决。 这一结果不仅对瑞幸咖啡意义重大，对在泰国面临商标抢注问题的其他国际企业同样意义深远。本案确立了三项重要先例：（1）泰国法院首次承认商标抢注原则；（2）适用更优权利原则撤销不当注册的商标；（3）作出泰国知识产权史上最高的损害赔偿判决。本案表明，只要制定周密的诉讼策略并掌握充分的恶意行为证据，泰国法院愿意撤销不当的商标注册、给予广泛的禁令救济，并判处能够反映商标抢注真实商业影响的高额损害赔偿。 对瑞幸咖啡而言，曾经围绕其在泰国商标权利的种种疑虑，如今已有了明确答案。

On October 2, 2026, the Trade Competition Commission of Thailand (TCCT) issued a new notification on fair trade practices concerning credit terms where large businesses, including large wholesale and retail businesses, purchase goods or services from small and medium-sized enterprises (SMEs). The notification will take effect on November 2, 2026. The new notification follows continued complaints from SMEs in Thailand about large businesses’ noncompliance with existing credit-term rules. Businesses and Transactions Covered The notification applies where an SME supplies goods or services on credit to a business with revenue from operations in Thailand of at least THB 500 million in the preceding financial year. The notification divides such purchasing businesses into “large businesses” and “large wholesale and retail businesses.” Wholesale and retail businesses include wholesalers and retailers of consumer goods using modern distribution systems and technologies, whether operating with or without branches or under a franchise arrangement. Examples include hypermarkets, cash-and-carry businesses, supermarkets, specialty stores, department stores, and convenience stores. In determining whether the THB 500 million threshold is met, the revenue of businesses having a relationship in terms of policies or control, establishing a single economic entity (SEE), must be combined. A supplier qualifies as an SME only if it satisfies both employee and annual revenue criteria, depending on the type of SME: Manufacturing businesses: No more than 200 employees and annual revenue not exceeding THB 500 million. Service, wholesale, or retail businesses: No more than 100 employees and annual revenue not exceeding THB 300 million. The notification covers written credit arrangements between SME sellers and large purchasers under which payment for goods or services is made at a later agreed date, including consignment and other forms of transaction. Key Credit-Term Requirements The maximum credit terms remain the same, but unlike the previous credit-term guidelines, which required the

On July 24, 2026, a new 12.5% Section 301 tariff took effect on most imports from Thailand into the United States. The tariff was imposed by the Office of the US Trade Representative (USTR) under Section 301 of the Trade Act of 1974, following a finding that Thailand had failed to impose and effectively enforce a prohibition on imports of goods produced with forced labor. The new tariff replaced the temporary 10% Section 122 surcharge that had applied since February 24, 2026, following the US Supreme Court’s invalidation of the prior tariffs imposed under the International Emergency Economic Powers Act (IEEPA). The 12.5% tariff is not the only potential source of additional US duties on Thai-origin goods. Thailand is also subject to a separate Section 301 investigation concerning structural excess manufacturing capacity, which could result in additional duties. Unlike the Section 122 surcharge, which was capped at 15% and limited to 150 days, Section 301 provides a more flexible framework for imposing and maintaining trade measures. Section 301 actions are generally subject to a four-year termination rule but may continue following a review if continuation is requested. The new tariff therefore represents a potentially longer-term change in the tariff treatment of Thai-origin goods entering the US market. This article explains the legal and policy developments that led to the new tariff, how the Section 301 tariff differs from the tariff regimes that preceded it, Thailand’s response and ongoing negotiations with the United States, and the practical implications for businesses that manufacture, export, import, or distribute goods between Thailand and the United States. From IEEPA to Section 122 to Section 301 IEEPA Era (April 2025–February 2026) Beginning in April 2025, the US administration imposed sweeping tariffs under the International Emergency Economic Powers Act (IEEPA), invoking national emergencies relating to trade

On September 23, 2026, the Trade Competition Commission of Thailand (TCCT) launched a one-month public consultation period on a proposed notification that would overhaul how antitrust offenses under the Trade Competition Act B.E. 2560 (2017) are settled and penalized. The draft notification would replace the existing 2019 settlement framework with more detailed procedures, introduce offense-specific methods for fine calculation, and add tiered deterrence multipliers. Comments may be submitted until October 22, 2026. Restructured Settlement Procedures and Timelines The proposed notification formalizes the settlement process with clearer terminology and mandatory procedural steps. Once the TCCT determines that an accused party has committed an offense that does not warrant imprisonment, the commission would fix the settlement fine amount. The accused would have 15 days from receipt of the summons to appear before the TCCT, though this period may be extended if necessary. If the accused confesses, consents to settlement, and pays the fine within the prescribed period, the criminal case would be closed and the settlement recorded. Refusals would also be recorded for further arrangements, and failure to appear, pay, or consent would result in the TCCT forwarding the case file and its recommendation—along with the accused’s fingerprints—to the public prosecutor. Notably, the draft allows accused parties to request settlement even after the TCCT has recommended prosecution but before the public prosecutor files charges, subject to prosecutorial consent. The draft preserves TCCT discretion to decline settlement where the accused has committed more than three prior offenses or where the violation has substantially impaired free and fair competition, directing such cases directly to prosecution. Fine Calculation Frameworks The proposed notification establishes different fine calculation approaches depending on the type of Trade Competition Act violation. For the most serious offenses (such as abusing market dominance, making anticompetitive agreements, or forming hardcore cartels) the