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​ 

July 25, 2025
Over the first half of 2025, the government of Vietnam has implemented a comprehensive suite of legislative reforms that significantly impact the country’s intellectual property (IP) framework. These amendments, most of which took effect on 1 July 2025, span the criminal, civil, administrative, and judicial sectors, and are part of a broader initiative to modernize Vietnam’s legal infrastructure, strengthen enforcement mechanisms, and harmonize domestic regulations with international standards. A summary of the key legislative changes and their potential implications for IP protection and enforcement across Vietnam is provided below. Criminal Code: Stricter penalties Under the 2025 amendments to Vietnam’s Criminal Code, penalties for offenses involving the manufacturing and trading of counterfeit goods have been significantly escalated. Individuals convicted of such violations now face fines ranging from VND 200 million to VND 2 billion (approximately USD 7,700 to USD 77,000; up from VND 100 million to VND 1 billion). For corporate entities, the penalties are even more severe, with fines ranging from VND 2 billion to VND 40 billion (roughly USD 77,000 to USD 1.54 million; up from VND 1 billion to VND 20 billion). These heightened penalties reflect the government’s intensified efforts to deter counterfeit-related crimes and protect consumer rights. Law on Handling Administrative Violations: Extended statute of limitations and application of electronic procedure The statute of limitations for addressing administrative violations in the IP sector is still two years. However, in cases where such violations are referred by procedural authorities, this period is extended by one year. The time taken by these authorities to process the case is now included within the overall limitation period. In addition, the Law on Handling Administrative Violations facilitates the use of electronic procedures, provided that the necessary infrastructure, technical systems, and information conditions are in place. Specifically, enforcement authorities are now permitted
Read More
July 21, 2025
Distinctiveness is a fundamental requirement for a trademark’s registration and protection under Thai law. The Thai courts typically assess distinctiveness based on a mark’s inherent characteristics rather than its use, as proving acquired distinctiveness through use requires substantial evidence, including the duration of use, extent of distribution and promotional efforts. However, the Intellectual Property and International Trade Court (IP & IT Court) has recently ruled that the figurative mark WEPLAY had acquired distinctiveness through use – an uncommon ruling under Thai trademark law. Subsequently, the Court of Appeal for Specialised Cases affirmed the mark’s inherent distinctiveness based on a holistic assessment of its components. This article discusses the criteria for proving both inherent and acquired distinctiveness, offering examples from both courts to provide valuable insights into case preparation and understanding of how the courts assess distinctiveness. Background In 2017 the plaintiff filed a trademark application for the mark depicted below for goods in Class 28, including toy building blocks: The registrar rejected the application on the grounds of non-distinctiveness under Section 7 of the Trademark Act. The plaintiff appealed to the Board of Trademarks, which considered that, when the term ‘weplay’ is used for goods in Class 28, it is descriptive of the nature of the goods applied for as “playthings”. Therefore, ‘weplay’ was deemed nondistinctive under Section 7, Paragraph 2(2) of the Trademark Act. IP & IT Court decision In 2024 the IP & IT Court ruled that the term ‘weplay’ is not a coined or invented word; instead, it is a combination of ‘we’ and ‘play’, conveying the meaning of ‘we play’. When the term is used for goods in Class 28, it describes the nature of the goods as “playthings”. Consequently, the mark was deemed non-distinctive. However, the court considered the evidence presented by the plaintiff,
Read More
July 14, 2025
Life sciences specialists from Tilleke & Gibbins have updated the firm’s guide to pharmaceutical data exclusivity regulations and practices in Southeast Asia. This guide contains quick-reference information on the availability of data exclusivity protections and limitations in Cambodia, Indonesia, Laos, Malaysia, Myanmar, Thailand, and Vietnam. Developing and launching a new drug on a commercial scale requires an enormous amount of time and investment in research and development (R&D), including pre-clinical testing and clinical trials. When considering the aggregate amount of drug development costs, it is important to recognize that this includes not only the investment in developing new drugs that get approved by a government food and drug regulator and are successfully brought to market, but also the R&D expenditures on a large number of potential pharmaceutical compounds and products that never actually make it to market. In particular, considerable investment is required in order to conduct and produce clinical trial data—to prove safety, efficacy and effectiveness of a new drug—that would warrant marketing approval by the regulatory authority. Such data is proprietary in nature and highly valuable for a research-based pharmaceutical company that develops an original drug. On the other hand, patent law typically confers generic drug manufacturers with the ability to engage in various preparatory activities with a view to obtaining marketing approval for a generic product before the patent for the original drug expires (commonly known as a “Bolar provision”). Since a generic drug maker may submit an application for marketing approval of a generic product before the relevant patent expires, the extent to which the drug originator’s data submitted to the regulatory authority is protected—or in other words, the extent to which the generic company may rely on the drug originator’s previously filed data, which underpins the safety and efficacy of the drug, to support
Read More
June 30, 2025
Vietnam is making notable strides in decentralization, aiming to grant greater autonomy to local government entities to streamline administrative procedures. As part of this effort, the government issued Decree No. 133/2025/ND-CP on decentralization of state management of the Ministry of Science and Technology dated June 12, 2025 (Decree 133). Effective from July 1, 2025, Decree 133 decentralizes and delegates numerous state management functions—including in intellectual property (IP) and technology transfer—to provincial-level People’s Committees (PCs). This reform signals a profound shift in how IP rights are administered and enforced across Vietnam. While this offers new opportunities for IP owners, agents, and innovators, it also introduces additional operational complexities. Impact on IP and Technology Transfer Decree 133 significantly reallocates responsibilities in IP and technology transfer, primarily to provincial-level PCs. Provincial PCs and other provincial authorities are now empowered to handle a wide range of tasks, including but not limited to the following: Issuance of duplicates and reissuance of certificates of registration. Registration of license agreements for the transfer of usage rights for industrial property objects (e.g., trademarks, patents) and recording amendments, extensions, or early terminations of such agreements. Enforcing decisions on compulsory licensing of patent use rights. Evaluation and approval of technology transfer contracts—a key step in facilitating localized technological advancements. Permitting the establishment of foreign-invested scientific organizations and their branches, to encourage foreign direct investment in local R&D and technology development. Approval of provincial-level R&D tasks, aligning with local socio-economic development priorities. Legal Implications The decentralization and delegation brought forth by Decree 133 carry several significant legal implications: Echoing Decree 133, the Intellectual Property Office of Vietnam issued Notification No. 2351/TB-SHTT on June 26, 2025, announcing the cessation of 19 administrative procedures at the national level. Specifically, from July 1, 2025, the IP Office will no longer accept requests related
Read More