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​ 

August 21, 2025
Although the “passing off” principle has sometimes faced criticism for potentially broadening trademark protection—particularly in cases involving unregistered or unconventional marks like shapes, scents, or sounds—it serves an essential purpose. It safeguards the rights of business owners and shields consumers from deception, ensuring fair competition and reflecting the realities of modern commerce. What is passing off, and why is registrability not required? The passing-off principle is a legal concept rooted in English law, aimed at preventing a person from falsely representing or using a mark similar to another’s in a way that causes consumers to mistakenly believe the goods or services come from the same source. Under Thai law, the passing-off principle is provided under Section 46 of the Thai Trademark Act, which states: No person shall be entitled to bring legal proceedings to prevent or to recover damages for the infringement of an unregistered trademark. The provisions of this Section shall not affect the right of the owner of an unregistered trademark to bring legal proceedings against any person for passing off goods as those of the owner of the trademark. The passing-off principle can be interpreted as a practical legal concept. It does not require proof that the mark is registrable or meets the registrability criteria under trademark law. It is sufficient to show that the mark has established goodwill and that the other party’s use of a similar mark is likely to confuse consumers, making it a straightforward and effective tool for protecting brand assets. Requiring a claimant to prove that an unregistered mark could have been registered would undermine the very function of passing off. The doctrine was conceived precisely to fill the gaps left by the registration system. Imposing registrability criteria would nullify its function and leave many commercially valuable identifiers unprotected. If the
Read More
August 15, 2025
Indonesia’s Directorate General of Intellectual Property (DGIP) has introduced a temporary feature in its online filing system to accommodate the submission of annual patent working statements. The requirement to submit these annual working statements was introduced under the amended Patent Law enacted on October 28, 2024, but the implementing regulation has still not been issued. Annual Working Statements Article 20A of the amended Patent Law requires all patentees to submit an annual statement regarding the implementation of their patents in Indonesia. This obligation applies to all active patents, regardless of when they were granted. The annual working statement declares the status of implementation of the patented invention within Indonesia. Acceptable forms of implementation include: Manufacturing the patented product (whether commercialized or not) Utilizing the patented process (whether commercialized or not) Importation Licensing If the patent has not yet been implemented in Indonesia, the DGIP provides an option to indicate: “The mentioned registered patent has not been implemented in Indonesia.” The statement must be made using the official template provided by the DGIP through the online filing system. Submission The working statement must be submitted annually no later than December 31 of each calendar year. No supporting documents are needed for the submission apart from the signed form itself. A color scanned copy will suffice; the original document is not required. There is currently no official fee for submitting the working statement. While the submission process may eventually align with annuity fee payments, the current process remains separate due to the pending implementing regulation. The submission process may be subject to change upon issuance of the implementing regulation, which is under discussion and expected in the coming months. In the interim, the DGIP accepts submissions of overdue working statements, allowing patentees to fulfill their obligations retroactively. This flexibility is expected
Read More
July 31, 2025
The Madrid System for international trademark registration provides the opportunity for a simplified and cost-effective way to register trademarks in multiple countries through a single application. Indonesia joined the Madrid System in 2018, and in 2024 alone, it received over 8,600 applications through this system. Despite the system’s effectiveness, it is important for trademark owners to be aware of the potential risks of refusal that can arise during the process of registration. Trademark applicants must pay close attention to these critical points when designating Indonesia. Appointing a Local Representative to Respond An applicant or representative of an international registration (IR) application that has been provisionally refused must appoint a local Indonesian representative in order to submit a response to the provisional refusal. This appointment is solely for the purpose of responding to the refusal in Indonesia; it is not necessary if the IR has not received any rejection. Furthermore, the local representative should not be registered with WIPO, as doing so would affect representation across all designated countries. Timing When it comes to calculating the deadline for responding to a provisional refusal, there is a discrepancy between the methods used by the DGIP and WIPO. Under the Indonesian Trademark Law, trademark owners can file a response within 30 working days, excluding weekends and national holidays. However, the WIPO cover letter accompanying the DGIP’s provisional refusal notice specifies both the start date and the deadline for responding to the notification, which is calculated as 30 calendar days, including weekends and national holidays. Therefore, a response to the provisional refusal of IR should be submitted in accordance with the WIPO cover letter to prevent any formality issue. Grounds for Refusal After an IR application is published in Indonesia’s Trademark Gazette, it undergoes substantive examination by the Directorate General of Intellectual Property (DGIP) examiners. The
Read More
July 30, 2025
Artificial intelligence (AI) model training and data scraping are essential processes in the development of modern AI systems. AI model training involves using large datasets to teach machine learning algorithms to recognize patterns, make predictions, or generate new content. Data scraping refers to the automated extraction of information from websites or digital sources, often to assemble the vast datasets required for effective AI training. As these practices become more widespread, questions about the legality of using third-party content—especially copyrighted works—have become increasingly important. In Thailand, the legal landscape for AI developers is shaped primarily by the Copyright Act, which presents unique challenges due to the absence of a fair-use exception. This article examines the copyright-related risks and legal uncertainties facing AI developers under Thailand’s current copyright law and practices, offering strategic guidance for navigating this complex environment. Copyright Risks in AI Scraping and Training Thailand’s Copyright Act does not provide a broad fair use or fair dealing exception, unlike some other jurisdictions, such as the United States. This absence has significant consequences for AI developers: No general defense for AI training: Any use of copyrighted material for AI model training is presumed to be infringing unless a specific, narrow statutory exception applies or explicit permission is obtained from the rights holder. There is no general legal basis for using copyrighted works in AI training without authorization. Increased rights clearance burden: Developers must identify and secure licenses for every copyrighted work included in their training datasets. Given the scale and diversity of data required for effective AI models, this process can be both impractical and costly. Legal ambiguity and litigation risk: The lack of clear statutory guidance or case law leaves developers in a legal gray area. There is no established precedent clarifying whether certain uses of copyrighted material for
Read More