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

August 31, 2011

Damages Awards Increasing in Thai IP Cases

Subscribe to Updates
Informed Counsel

In pursuing civil litigation in court, most IP owners will first and foremost seek an injunction against any infringing activities. In addition, IP owners will often demand adequate damages as compensation for the irreparable harm suffered due to the infringement of their intellectual property rights. Most IP owners typically seek damages in an amount that will sufficiently cover lost revenue and sales so that, financially, the IP owner is returned to the same position as if the infringement had not occurred.

In many cases, however, the amount of damages awarded by the Thai Intellectual Property and International Trade Court (IP&IT Court) may be significantly lower than the actual injury or losses sustained by the IP owner. Ever since the IP&IT Court’s establishment in 1997, these limited damages awards have proved to be an obstacle and a strong deterrent for IP owners considering litigation. However, IP owners have new reason for optimism in this area, as several recent decisions have provided large damages awards to plaintiffs.

Assessing Damages

IP owners have the fundamental right to bring claims against infringers who knowingly engage in an infringing activity. The right to bring a civil action against an infringer is outlined in Part 5 of the Civil and Commercial Code (CCC) regarding wrongful acts (similar to tort law in other jurisdictions).

In particular, Section 438 of the CCC provides an essential guideline for the court to estimate the amount of damages, as pursued in the case, by making such awards based on the actual amount of damages suffered by the infringed party. This means that the damages that are awarded are a direct reflection of the infringement, which must be proven by providing clear-cut evidence.

It must be noted, however, that the law does not provide fixed criteria regarding methods for assessing and calculating damages. Therefore, assessment of damages is typically left to the sole discretion of the court. According to Section 438, the court is allowed to evaluate the “circumstances and the gravity of the wrongful act” and determine the damages accordingly.

Rationales for Rejection

In rejecting requests for compensation, the court has cited a number of rationales, including the following:

  1. The amount of compensation, as claimed, is found to be based on the future assumptions of the plaintiff.
  2. There is insufficient evidence to demonstrate the actual damages as claimed.
  3. The legal fees, as claimed, are found to be excessive for the necessary enforcement of the plaintiff’s rights.

In putting forward these explanations, the Thai IP&IT Court, as of today, has never specifically clarified the extent of the evidence that is required to prove actual damages or to prove the expenses incurred by the IP owner during the case.

Burden and Difficulties

The IP owner, as the plaintiff, is required to undertake a virtually impossible task of demonstrating all the potential causes for its lost sales, other than through the conduct of the infringer. This requires the owner to provide clear-cut evidence to demonstrate the exact amount of damages.

This requirement can become even more onerous because, in general, an infringer’s profits cannot be used as a benchmark for awarding damages in a Thai court. With respect to lawyer’s fees, Thai civil procedure law restricts the maximum rate that can be fixed by the court to 5 percent of the claim amount.

All of this presents a challenge for infringed IP owners who wish to successfully pursue litigation through the courts, as a means to recovering monetary damages. However, the Thai IP&IT Court has recently shown encouraging signs of changing its practice through the exercise of its sole discretion.

Recent Trend Favoring IP Owners

Thai law provides sole discretion and broad criteria for the court to assess the amount of monetary damages on a case-by-case basis. This approach is actually encouraging for IP owners, as evidenced by some recent cases in which the court provided damages awards favorable to IP owners.

Copyright Infringement

In February 2008, the Supreme Court concluded a long legal battle between Tsuburaya Productions of Japan and Tsuburaya Chaiyo Co., Ltd., a Thai company, by awarding one of the highest payouts for damages ever seen in a copyright case in Thailand. The case involved the rightful ownership of copyright over the artistic works of a famous superhero character, Ultraman. The Japanese company won the case, and the Thai company was ordered to pay THB 10.7 million (about USD 358,270) in compensation, along with interest of 7.5 percent per year, from the date of filing the case (December 1997) until the total amount has been fully paid. [Supreme Court Judgment No.7457/2550 (2007)]

The assessment of the total damages awarded in this case was derived from the numerous infringement activities of the Thai company. In particular, the Thai company acted as the real copyright owner of the Ultraman character for a period of several years, heavily marketing its products in many provinces in Thailand and licensing the Ultraman copyright works to other companies without the authorization of the Japanese company.

Infringement and Cancellation of Trademarks

In February 2011, the IP&IT Court announced a judgment in favor of our client, an Italian fashion brand that was established by twin Canadian brothers. The Court ruled that the infringer’s 18 similar trademarks should be cancelled from registration based on the better rights of our clients and passing-off claims. The Court also ordered the defendants to compensate the plaintiff for the amount of THB 100,000 (about USD 3,350) per month, calculated from the date the plaintiff filed the complaint to the date the defendants withdrew their registered trademarks or the date the defendants ceased to infringe the plaintiff’s trademarks, which amounted to over THB 1 million (about USD 33,333) by the time the judgment was rendered at the IP&IT Court as the court of first instance. [IP&IT Court Judgment Red Case No. TorPor9/2554 (2011)]

This trademark case is one of a number of recent trademark infringement cases in which the IP&IT Court has awarded plaintiffs damages of THB 100,000 per month, calculated from the date the complaint was filed.

Misappropriation of Trade Secrets

In April 2011, one of our clients won a historic judgment in a case against its former Thai employees. These employees had misappropriated our client’s valuable trade secrets in relation to magnetic powder technology.

The IP&IT Court awarded an injunction against the use and disclosure of the plaintiff’s trade secret technologies, including machines, processes, and related information. The plaintiff received substantial damages in the amount of THB 20 million (about USD 667,000), including an interest payment of 7.5 percent per year to be payable on this amount, starting from the date of the complaint until the completion of the payment. In addition, the defendants were ordered to pay the plaintiff’s legal fees in the amount of THB 100,000.

This total sum also included a penalty of THB 1 million (about USD 33,500) per month for any further infringing acts, as of the date of judgment. It was also ruled that all of the defendant’s machines, equipment, information, and products, which infringed our client’s trade secrets, would be vested with our client. The machinery has an estimated of value of more than THB 30 million (about USD 1 million). [IP&IT Court Judgment Red Case No. TorPor38/2554 (2011)]

This case has gained recognition as being one of the most exceptional IP civil litigations undertaken in Thailand, as it was the first case in which a trade secret owner has successfully enforced against trade secret misappropriation in Thailand. In addition, the damages award is also the largest amount ever provided by the IP&IT Court, with total damages of at least THB 52 million (about USD 1.7 million).

Conclusion

The structure of the Thai civil court system and the civil remedies for IP infringements have long had a reputation as being relatively weak, particularly in regard to the awarding of damages. This was due, in part, to the requirement that IP owners prove, with absolute certainty, all elements of the damages sought.

In spite of the practical difficulties involved in gauging the amount of damages necessary to adequately compensate infringed IP owners, these recent court cases show that the Thai IP&IT Court is finally revising its traditionally conservative practice of awarding low amounts. Of course, because Thailand is a civil law country, the court will not rely entirely on precedents in order to estimate damages in future cases. In the absence of specific guidelines on how to assess damages, the IP&IT Court will need to evaluate the relevant circumstances of each case and the gravity of each wrongful act, as it did in the cases described above. Nevertheless, IP owners now have a much clearer picture regarding the type of information that needs to be provided to the court in order to achieve a favorable damages award.

Download Full Article
Related Professionals

Practices

Dispute Resolution and Litigation

Intellectual Property

Location

RELATED INSIGHTS​ 

August 24, 2026
Significant economic challenges facing Thailand in recent years have placed financial pressure on both individuals and businesses. As a result, many debtors may find themselves unable to meet their repayment obligations, leading to bankruptcy proceedings. When an individual or corporate debtor in Thailand is subject to bankruptcy proceedings, the Thai Bankruptcy Act B.E. 2483 (1940) provides a legal framework for collecting a debtor’s assets and using them to repay creditors. Under the Bankruptcy Act, creditors wishing to recover outstanding debts must file a debt repayment application (DRA), which is the primary mechanism for asserting claims in bankruptcy proceedings. However, the filing of a DRA is subject to specific legal requirements, procedural rules, deadlines, and supporting documentation. Failure to comply with these requirements may adversely affect a creditor’s ability to recover its claim. This article highlights the key considerations that creditors should be aware of when filing a DRA in a bankruptcy case in Thailand. Filing a DRA In a bankruptcy case, after the court issues an absolute receivership order, the debtor loses the authority to manage or dispose of its assets. Control over the debtor’s assets is transferred to the official receiver, a government official responsible for administering the bankruptcy estate in accordance with the Bankruptcy Act. Creditors seeking repayment of their debts must file a DRA with the official receiver within two months of the absolute receivership order being officially published in the Government Gazette. For creditors outside of Thailand, the official receiver may extend the filing period by up to an additional two months. These filing deadlines are strictly enforced. Failure to file within the prescribed period may result in the claim being barred, except in limited circumstances permitted by the Bankruptcy Act. Where a late filing is accepted due to force majeure, the creditor may only
Read More
August 20, 2026
Vietnam’s Law on Bankruptcy and Rehabilitation No. 142/2025/QH15, passed by the National Assembly on December 11, 2025, does something many regional counterparts do not yet attempt: it instructs parties and arbitral tribunals on exactly what happens to an arbitration once a debtor becomes insolvent. Together with the Law on Commercial Arbitration No. 54/2010/QH12, the new law improves upon what used to be an uncertain area of practice, now providing an explicit, mandatory sequence of procedures. Suspension and Termination of Arbitration Proceedings Under article 40(2) of the law, once a Vietnamese court accepts a bankruptcy petition, any arbitration that concerns the debtor’s financial obligations must be temporarily suspended as soon as the tribunal receives the court’s notification. If the court subsequently issues a decision commencing bankruptcy proceedings, article 59(2) takes a further step: the suspended arbitration is terminated outright, and the underlying case file is transferred to the court handling the insolvency for resolution. The two provisions work as a sequence: first suspension, then termination and transfer, rather than as independent triggers. Meanwhile, article 60(4) reinforces this effect by vesting the bankruptcy court with exclusive jurisdiction over all claims against the debtor from the date the petition is accepted. Notably, this mechanism operates automatically, without the need for the insolvency court to issue a separate anti-arbitration order. The tribunal simply suspends or terminates the proceeding by operation of law once notified; however, Vietnamese law currently provides no procedure by which a party can apply to the insolvency court for permission to continue the arbitration despite the statutory effect. Practitioners with a Vietnamese counterparty in arbitration should treat notification of a bankruptcy filing as something to flag to the tribunal immediately since continuing to arbitrate a claim that has become subject to article 40(2) or 59(2) risks producing an award vulnerable
Read More
August 20, 2026
Thai law contains no provision that speaks directly to what happens to an arbitration when one of the parties becomes insolvent. The interaction between arbitration and insolvency is derived instead from the general operation of two separately drafted laws: the Bankruptcy Act B.E. 2483 (1940) and the Arbitration Act B.E. 2545 (2002). Because Thai courts have had few opportunities to interpret how these two statutes apply together, the practical answer to many questions, such as who represents an insolvent party in arbitration, whether an award will be enforced, and what happens to a foreign proceeding, depends on inference from general principles of insolvency, arbitration, and procedural law rather than on settled rules. Liquidation and Restructuring The Bankruptcy Act governs both liquidation, which winds up a debtor’s affairs, and restructuring (rehabilitation), which aims to preserve a business. The consequences for arbitration differ accordingly. In liquidation, the debtor’s assets vest in the official receiver, who alone can conduct or continue any arbitration affecting the estate; the debtor loses the authority to act on its own behalf. In restructuring, the plan preparer or administrator takes over that role, but there is more room for the debtor to remain involved, since the objective of rehabilitation is to keep the business operational. Restructuring carries an automatic stay that takes effect once the Bankruptcy Court accepts the restructuring petition. This stay can halt an arbitration regardless of where it is seated. In contrast, liquidation does not work through a stay; instead, the debtor’s loss of authority over its own assets and disputes is what constrains the arbitration. Neither proceeding provides a party a formal route to apply for permission to continue arbitrating—the Bankruptcy Act contains no such mechanism—though in restructuring cases the Bankruptcy Court may allow proceedings to continue where doing so will not prejudice
Read More
August 20, 2026
As part of its membership in Lex Mundi, Tilleke & Gibbins has released the latest edition of its Guide to Doing Business in Thailand, providing an overview of the legal, regulatory, and commercial considerations for companies establishing or expanding operations in Thailand. The 2026 edition offers practical insight into the country’s business environment, investment framework, and operational requirements. The guide covers a wide range of topics relevant to foreign and domestic investors, including: Investment incentives and promotion schemes Financial facilities and banking regulations Exchange controls and money transfers Import and export regulations Business structures and incorporation options Requirements for establishing a business Operational and compliance considerations Business cessation and insolvency procedures Employment and labor laws Taxation Immigration and visa requirements Prepared by Tilleke & Gibbins lawyers across multiple practice areas, the publication outlines key aspects of doing business in Thailand, including foreign investment restrictions, regulatory compliance obligations, corporate structures, employment requirements, and recent legal and economic developments affecting investors. The publication forms part of Lex Mundi’s Country Guides series, a global collection of jurisdiction-specific reference materials prepared by member firms around the world. Together, these guides help companies evaluate opportunities, compare regulatory environments, and plan international business activities across multiple markets. The full Guide to Doing Business in Thailand 2026 is available through the button below.
Read More