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 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 6, 2026
Every month, VAT-registered businesses in Thailand calculate their output and input VAT and file a return to pay the net amount due or claim a refund. Yet a common and costly dispute arises when a business that has paid input VAT to its supplier—and done everything asked of it—later finds that input VAT rejected on the grounds that the tax invoice was issued by “a person not entitled to issue tax invoices.” In these cases, a buyer may have confirmed the supplier’s VAT registration on the Revenue Department’s website, paid through the banking system, received a complete tax invoice, and kept full payment and inventory records. Even so, if the Revenue Department later determines that the supplier did not genuinely make the sale or collected the VAT without remitting it, the department can disallow the input VAT and assess additional tax, surcharge, and penalty—often more than a year after the transaction. A new article from tax and dispute resolution specialists at Tilleke & Gibbins in Bangkok examines how the Revenue Department and the courts approach these disputes, including two recent Supreme Court (Tax Division) decisions confirming that the taxpayer bears the burden of proving a supplier genuinely sold and delivered the goods and received payment. It considers why the VAT registration system offers no legal safe harbor, why the evidentiary burden falls hardest on online and cross-border transactions where buyers and sellers never meet, and how the Revenue Department’s own digital infrastructure could detect non-remitting suppliers at the source rather than shifting the loss to good-faith buyers. The article also sets out practical guidance: how to build a comprehensive “know-your-supplier” file at the time of a transaction, the procedural steps and strict deadlines for challenging a VAT assessment, and why dispute readiness belongs alongside tax planning at the center
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