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

December 5, 2018

Development of Trademark and Patent e-Filing in Thailand: Benefits of New System Explained

Subscribe to Updates
WTR Daily, World Trademark Review

Thailand’s Department of Intellectual Property (DIP) has been working to introduce an electronic filing system for some time, first introducing electronic filing (e-filing) for patent and trademark applications in 2016 and working to improve it ever since.

The first approach saw two separate platforms for trademark and patent applications. The system required the relevant office fees to be paid at a specific bank within 24 hours of submission, and hard copies of the documents already filed electronically to be submitted within 15 days from the e-filing date. The system was quite unstable and caused a number of difficulties and problems. As a result, it was unpopular with IP owners and agents and was mostly only used in urgent cases.

On July 3, 2017, the DIP announced an updated version of the e-filing system for trademark registration (and especially for sound marks), in response to the Thai national policy of promoting the digital economy (popularly referred to as “Thailand 4.0”). However, this revised e-filing system was only a trial and the requirements for bank payment and the submission of hard copies remained unchanged.

Latest e-Filing System

A significant change later emerged on March 5, 2018, when the DIP announced a new e-filing system, which allowed users to submit the four main types of intellectual property application (trademark registration, patent registration, design registration, and recording copyright) via one platform with a single login (called “e-Authentication”). More importantly, the new system introduced alternative payment channels and removed the requirement for applicants to submit hard copies if the documents already filed online met the DIP’s requirements. The new e-filing system is an optional tool, intended to operate in parallel with the submission of documents in person at the DIP office. With the introduction of this new application management system, the redundant and inefficient workflow processes would be eliminated. Moreover, the DIP has planned to launch an electronic delivery of office actions to applicants who filed e-filing applications via this system. We believe that this will increase efficiency for communication between the DIP and IP owners.

To be eligible for e-filing, users (including applicants and IP agents) must create an account with the DIP and submit supporting identity documents before registering for an electronic signature. As mentioned earlier, an applicant is no longer required to submit hard copies of documents filed via the e-filing system, subject to certain exceptions. For example, the following must still be submitted if used in support of an application:

  • an original certified copy of the foreign application for a priority claim
  • an original registration certificate for assignment of a trademark
  • hard copy evidence of use to prove the secondary meaning of a trademark

In those cases, the required original documents must be submitted to the DIP within 15 days from the e-filing date.

Benefits of Using E-Filing

The new e-filing system is a faster and more convenient tool for filing intellectual property applications with the DIP. The new electronic-based workflow system consists of several significant modules:

  • e-filing of applications and requests
  • e-payment via bank transfer
  • paperless modules
  • e-signature modules

With these new capabilities, enabled by an advanced IT system, filing an application can now be carried out immediately without wasting time on the traditional procedure of manually preparing hard-copy files. Internal application retrieval requests and instructions from the Registrar can be quickly processed through this new information system, which allows users to input and immediately save any information related to requests, instructions, etc. This certainly makes the entire process of trademark registration considerably more convenient and time-effective.

Under this new e-filing system, fees can be paid via several channels and with more time flexibility, although payment of official fees must be made by 10 p.m. of the following day. In addition to the traditional routes of paying the official fee via cash, bank transfer during a visit to the bank, or through other payment service providers, this new system allows a user or applicant to pay the official fee via credit card payment online or via online banking.

Current Situation

Even though these improvements to the registration process are quite recent, the numbers of new users are gradually increasing. Online trademark filings comprised 2,648 of the 52,936 total requests made in 2017 (5%) and online patent filings comprised 766 of the total 3,337 requests between January and October 2018 (23%). It is hoped that this application and registration management system and workflow process, specifically designed for trademark registration, will greatly enhance the DIP’s services, by allowing them to be delivered in a more convenient, timely, and cost-effective manner to all trademark owners and the public.

Download Full Article
Related Professionals
Thaniya Bunroj
Email

Practices

Intellectual Property

Location

RELATED INSIGHTS​ 

October 3, 2025
In Thailand, the rise in online intellectual property infringement has prompted authorities to strengthen enforcement efforts, including the use of website-blocking orders under Section 20(3) of the Computer Crime Act B.E. 2560 (2017) (CCA). This provision authorizes the Ministry of Digital Economy and Society (MDES), with court approval, to block or remove computer data that constitutes a criminal offence under IP law. Since its implementation, the procedure has undergone several developments, which is an encouraging sign of progress. Website-blocking procedure In practice, website-blocking orders under Section 20(3) of the CCA are primarily used for copyright and trademark infringement. While such orders are legally applicable to patent infringement, their use remains challenging due to the difficulty of proving infringement through administrative procedures. The website-blocking procedure begins when an IP owner identifies online infringing content. For copyright infringement, which is considered a compoundable offence, the IP owner is required to first file a police report with the specialized police unit known as the Economic Crime Suppression Division (ECD) prior to filing the website-blocking application with the Department of Intellectual Property (DIP). For trademark infringement cases, the application can be filed directly with the DIP without a prior police report. The DIP reviews the evidence and, if infringement is confirmed, forwards it to the MDES for further consideration. If the case is deemed valid, the MDES requests a court order to block the infringing website. Once granted, the MDES notifies the internet service providers (ISPs) to block access to the specified website. Website blocking procedure in Thailand Recent advancements in website-blocking actions Seamless collaboration through digital integration. Thailand has made significant progress in digitizing its website-blocking procedures to improve efficiency and transparency. At present, all website-blocking applications and supporting evidence must be submitted in electronic format. These systems have significantly reduced processing
Read More
September 24, 2025
Online shopping in Thailand is more accessible than ever, with global platforms, local social media shops, and entertainment-driven social commerce enabling instant purchases. However, this convenience comes with rising concerns over digital intellectual property (IP) infringement, including counterfeit goods, pirated content, and unauthorized brand usage. At first glance, online platforms appear to offer quick solutions. Most major e-commerce sites, social media channels, and social commerce platforms provide “notice and takedown” systems, where IP owners can file complaints and request the removal of listings that infringe IP rights, such as trademarks and copyrights. These tools are certainly useful, as seeing a fake product vanish from a platform feels like progress. But the reality is less reassuring. The counterfeit goods themselves remain in warehouses, markets, or shops, ready to be resold. Sellers whose accounts are taken down often return within days under new names or accounts. In other words, a takedown is like cutting weeds without pulling out the roots: they always grow back. While notice and takedown tools are widely available and can be managed internally by most IP owners, their impact is often short-lived. IP owners seeking more effective, lasting protection need to take a more strategic and multilayered approach. The same applies to online piracy. Unauthorized streaming websites that offer free access to movies, TV shows, or sports broadcasts have become widespread in Thailand. To combat this, rightsholders can request website blocking under the Computer Crime Act, through the Ministry of Digital Economy and Society and the courts. Once requests are approved, internet service providers are ordered to block access to infringing sites. Blocking orders can be effective in disrupting large-scale piracy operations, but they also face limitations—pirate sites frequently reappear under new domains. Strategic Protection Whether the infringing material is physical counterfeit goods or intangible streaming content,
Read More
September 4, 2025
On June 6, 2025, the Superior People’s Court in Hanoi overturned a non-use cancellation decision by the Intellectual Property Office of Vietnam, a rare and impactful occurrence. In a ruling that may help clarify the enforcement of Vietnam’s IP Law, the court held that valid trademark use can be established through commercial arrangements where the brand owner maintains actual control over the use of the mark, and is not confined to relationships governed by a so-called “formal license agreement. Background: Cross-Border Use, Local Challenge A Singapore company owns a well-known brand of consumer products that has gained recognition across Southeast Asia. In recent years, the brand has been targeted by several unauthorized trademark filings in Vietnam. In one such instance, a local Vietnamese trading company—previously linked to the production and export of counterfeit goods to neighboring countries—filed a non-use cancellation against the Singapore company’s mark and sought to register it under its own name. If the cancellation had been upheld, it would have enabled a complete hijacking of the brand. The IP holder operates in Vietnam through a structured cross-border supply chain. Under an agreement between two related foreign entities, one of which managed regional operations, production orders were placed through a designated Vietnamese company. While the Vietnamese manufacturer was not a party to the agreement, its role in using the mark was recognized and governed by internal and commercial documentation. The Vietnamese manufacturer lawfully obtained the necessary permits, regulatory approvals, and customs clearances for producing the goods in Vietnam. These activities were supported by banking records and internal communications, evidencing active, continuous use of the mark in Vietnam. However, the IP Office concluded that this use did not meet the statutory criteria because the Vietnamese manufacturer did not have a direct license agreement with the brand owner, as
Read More
August 25, 2025
Indonesia’s current regulations on franchises, as stipulated under Government Regulation No. 35/2024 on Franchising and its implementing regulation, Ministry of Trade (MOT) Regulation No. 71/2019 regarding Implementation of Franchising, highlight fundamental changes in franchise registration. These changes have introduced additional complexities and challenges in the franchise registration procedure, making it more difficult for franchise owners to navigate the process. New procedure Franchise applications are still submitted through the Online Single Submission (OSS) portal of the Capital Investment Coordinating Board (BKPM). However, the new procedure requires each applicant, including foreign franchisors, to have an OSS account and a business registration number (NIB) issued by BKPM. An application for franchise registration must be submitted under the applicant’s own account—submissions can no longer be made through the account of a consultant. Once a franchise application is submitted, the authority will distribute the submission to the MOT—the authorized ministry for franchise registration. Any notification or decision upon the registration made by the MOT will be available in the OSS system. Applicants should regularly monitor the status of the franchise application because no notifications will be sent to applicants to alert them of any deficiency. Here is the summary of the new procedure for franchisors: Notable Requirements The disclosure document, or prospectus, is the key focus for the MOT in examining a franchise registration for a franchisor. This document is subject to thorough scrutiny by the MOT to ensure that all mandatory information meets the requirements set in the franchise regulations. The current regulations specifically require that the mandatory clause “business system” in the prospectus cover operational standards and procedures, which should include human resource management, administration, operational management, standard operating methods, business location selection, business premises design, employee requirements, and marketing strategies. Other clauses that are equally important to pay attention to are:
Read More