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​ 

June 10, 2026
For multinational franchisors operating in Thailand, a key risk after franchise termination is that former outlets may continue operating in ways that could easily mislead consumers into believing they remain within the authorized network. To justify such operations, former franchisees often argue that the termination was invalid or ineffective. As a result, these cases are often treated as contractual disputes, making it difficult for franchisors to obtain injunctive relief before a final judgment confirms that the termination was lawful. Franchisors face significant commercial and reputational harm during lengthy proceedings, including consumer confusion, disruption to franchise restructuring, and damage to brand reputation and customer trust. In an encouraging development, the Thai court in a 2025 case responded to the problem of unauthorized post-termination franchise operations by granting interim relief, recognizing broader brand and consumer harm, and awarding substantial damages, highlighting a successful litigation strategy of framing the dispute not merely as a contractual termination issue but as trademark infringement causing ongoing commercial injury. The Subway Case From December 2024 to mid-2025, an unauthorized “Subway®” franchise operation in Thailand attracted substantial public and media attention. Reports and online discussions about unauthorized Subway® stores circulated widely after complaints arose about food quality and customer experience at certain outlets that were allegedly operating after their franchise rights had expired. Because these stores continued to use Subway® trademarks, trade dress, and overall commercial appearance, many consumers were unable to distinguish them from authorized operations, resulting in reputational risks and customer confusion that affected the franchisor’s brand and franchise system in Thailand. Subway treated this matter with the utmost seriousness and moved promptly to protect its brand, franchise system, and customers. It filed a civil action with the IP&IT Court seeking a permanent injunction and damages. During the proceedings, the court granted a preliminary injunction
Read More
May 22, 2026
Intellectual property specialists from Tilleke & Gibbins in Vietnam have contributed an updated Intellectual Property Transactions in Vietnam overview for Thomson Reuters Practical Law, an online publication that provides comprehensive legal guides for jurisdictions worldwide. The Vietnam overview was authored by Linh Thi Mai Nguyen, Thanh Phuong Vu, Chi Lan Dang, Son Thai Hoang, and Duc Anh Tran. The chapter provides a high-level examination of key aspects of IP transactions law in Vietnam, including IP assignment and licensing, research and development collaborations, IP in mergers and acquisitions (M&A), lending and taking security over intellectual property rights, settlement agreements, employee- and consultant-created IP, competition law, taxation, and non-tariff trade barriers. Key topics covered in the chapter include: IP assignment: Basis and formalities for assignments of patents, utility models, trade marks, copyright, design rights, trade secrets, confidential information, and domain names in Vietnam. IP licensing: Scope, formalities, and recordal requirements for licensing patents, trade marks, copyright, design rights, and trade secrets. Research and development collaborations: Treatment of improvements, derivatives, and joint ownership of IP, including exploitation and enforcement issues. IP aspects of M&A and security: Due diligence, warranties, transfer formalities, and taking security over intellectual property rights. Practical Law, a legal reference resource from Thomson Reuters, publishes a range of guides for hundreds of jurisdictions and practice areas. The Intellectual Property Transactions Global Guide is a valuable resource for legal practitioners seeking comparative insight into transactional IP issues across multiple jurisdictions. To view the latest version of the Intellectual Property Transactions in Vietnam overview, please visit the Practical Law website and enroll in the free Practical Law trial to gain full access.
Read More
May 13, 2026
Laos has significantly broadened its industrial property administrative review framework, most notably by extending it to cover copyright and related rights for the first time. Decision No. 0306/IC on the Administrative Resolution of Disputes Concerning Industrial Property Registration, New Plant Variety Registration, and Copyright and Related Rights Recordation took effect on April 24, 2026, replacing the previous rules from 2023, which had covered only industrial property and new plant variety matters. Decision No. 0306/IC governs how Laos’ Department of Intellectual Property (DIP) and provincial offices handle formal challenges to industrial property registrations and applications. The proceedings covered include oppositions to pending applications, appeals of refused applications, requests for cancellation of existing registrations, and—newly—disputes concerning the recordation and interpretation of copyright and related rights. These administrative proceedings within the DIP are heard by a government-appointed Administrative Dispute Resolution Committee, which functions similarly to the opposition and review boards found in other jurisdictions. Key Changes Decision No. 0306/IC covers four categories of administrative proceedings: Oppositions: Third-party challenges to a pending industrial property application before it is granted. Refusal appeals: Challenges to the DIP’s decision to refuse their application. Cancellation or deletion requests: Applications to invalidate an existing registered right on the grounds that it should not have been granted. Copyright and related rights disputes: Challenges to or interpretations of copyright and related rights recordations, including determinations of whether a work qualifies for copyright protection under Lao law. The most significant development is the committee’s new jurisdiction over copyright matters. The committee is now empowered to resolve disputes concerning copyright and related rights recordation—this includes the authority to determine whether a work qualifies for copyright protection and to interpret the scope of an existing recordation. Parties who believe a competitor has improperly recorded copyright over a work, or who wish to contest
Read More
April 30, 2026
Vietnam’s Decree No. 134/2026/ND‑CP, which took effect on 9 April 2026, plays an important role in detailing and implementing Vietnam’s Intellectual Property (IP) Law in the context of rapid digital transformation and the growing application of artificial intelligence (AI). The new decree provides comprehensive guidance on the application of copyright and related‑rights regulations, addressing key issues such as authorship, ownership, statutory exceptions and limitations, registration procedures, and enforcement mechanisms. Through these measures, Decree 134 seeks to achieve an appropriate balance between safeguarding the legitimate interests of rightsholders and fostering innovation, research, and technological advancement, thereby strengthening the state’s framework for the effective management, protection, and exploitation of intellectual property in the digital and AI‑driven environment. Some notable aspects of Decree 134 are discussed below. Copyright for AI-Created Works Decree 134 provides important guidance on the determination of copyright and related rights in works created with the assistance of AI. Article 5a reaffirms the principle that human creativity remains central to copyright protection, clarifying that copyright or related rights arise only where a human makes a substantial and decisive intellectual contribution, exercises effective control over the creative outcome, and assumes responsibility for the content and its legality. At the same time, the provision confirms that AI is regarded solely as a technological tool rather than a rights‑holding subject, thus ensuring consistency with the fundamental concepts of authorship and ownership under the IP Law. By introducing requirements on transparency, proof of human contribution, and compliance with AI‑specific labelling and technical marking obligations, Decree 134 establishes a clear and enforceable legal framework for the responsible use of AI in creative activities. Lawful Use of Copyrighted Texts and Data Article 37a of Decree 134 sets out the specific conditions under which copyrighted texts and data may be lawfully used for scientific research, experimentation,
Read More