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 3, 2014

The DIP’s Study into an International Industrial Design Registration System

Subscribe to Updates
Informed Counsel

One of Thailand’s keen ambitions is to become a member of the Hague Agreement Concerning the International Registration of Industrial Designs, a key international treaty created for the purpose of protecting intellectual property. The treaty and its mechanisms, collectively known as the Hague System, have instituted an international system that facilitates the registration of industrial designs in several countries by allowing applicants to file a single application in one language with one set of fees to protect their industrial designs in states that adhere to the Hague Agreement. This system reduces the time and resources that are required to register an industrial design.   

In 2011, the Department of Intellectual Property (DIP) in Thailand conducted an in-depth study into the benefits that Thai businesses and designers would derive from Thailand becoming a party to the Hague Agreement. The study confirmed that Thailand’s adherence to and involvement in the treaty would, indeed, benefit Thai businesses—both large corporations and SMEs—for the reason that it would increase their competitive capabilities as they relate to foreign corporations and would facilitate their expansion into the global market. Following the completion of this study, however, there were no significant developments in Thailand’s progress toward becoming a member of this treaty—until now.

With Thailand’s commitment to the ASEAN IPR Action Plan 2011-2015, under which the target has been set for at least seven ASEAN countries to become members of the Hague Agreement by 2015, in the third quarter of this year, the DIP began a nine-month study into a viable management system for international industrial design applications under the Hague Agreement, as established by the Geneva Act of 1999. The study’s ultimate goal is to prepare and make ready the DIP’s facilities and personnel for the management and examination of international applications. In particular, the study sets out to:

  1. create a process and management system for industrial design applications under the Hague Agreement which are appropriate for Thailand by taking into account all of the relevant factors, including the estimated amount of international applications, manpower required for management, and types of entities and industries that will use the international application route;
  2. evaluate the potential of the design industry in Thailand in fully exploiting the benefits of this international registration system of design;
  3. educate and prepare DIP personnel for the effective management and examination of international applications; and
  4. educate all businesses in the design industry and all designers on the use of the international registration system for protection of their designs.   

The methodology used in this study is not limited only to reviewing literature and data in the international registration system for industrial design. The scope also extends to looking at the standards and practices of the industrial design offices of countries that are already members of the Hague Agreement, reviewing its own current process and management system for national industrial design applications, conducting interviews with various corporations and organizations in the design industry to gain input and recommendations on the management system and examination process (to help minimize foreseeable difficulties), and organizing focus groups to obtain feedback on its proposed management system.

A conclusive study that takes heed of the objectives and proposed methods established at the outset will allow the DIP to implement an effective, internationally-compatible industrial design registration system that is suitable for Thailand and its available resources. However, we cannot leap to the conclusion that Thailand will soon become a member of the Hague Agreement. The ongoing study may reveal certain changes that the DIP needs to implement before accession to the Hague Agreement can be made, and these changes may lead to a significant delay in the further actions required for the accession. This is a subject for discussion at a later time. For the time being, we remain cautiously optimistic that the study will yield a positive result, and we will update readers on any developments in a future issue of Informed Counsel.

Download Full Article
Related Professionals

Practices

Intellectual Property

Location

RELATED INSIGHTS​ 

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
July 27, 2026
Vietnam’s new E-Commerce Law, which took effect on 1 July 2026 along with its implementing Decree No. 248/2026/ND-CP (Decree 248), marks a significant development in the country’s approach to online intellectual property (IP) enforcement, reflecting a clear shift from a reactive model of intermediary liability to one that expects platforms to play a more active role in preventing infringement. From notice-and-takedown to platform responsibility The most significant change introduced by the E-Commerce Law is the transformation of the legal role of e-commerce platforms. The existing safe harbor provisions under the IP Law and the copyright notice-and-takedown regime established by Decree 17/2023/ND-CP (Decree 17) largely required intermediaries to act only after receiving notice of infringement. Once infringing content had been removed, the platform’s legal obligation was generally considered fulfilled. The new legislation adopts a fundamentally different approach. Article 17 of the E-Commerce Law requires intermediary platforms to screen information relating to goods and services before publication in order to prevent listings involving counterfeit or IP-infringing goods, and goods of unknown origin. Rather than relying exclusively on complaints from rights holders, platforms are now expected to implement preventive measures before infringing listings become publicly available. Decree 248 further requires platforms to update keyword filters based on recommendations issued by competent authorities. These filtering mechanisms are intended to prevent prohibited listings from appearing on the platform and represent a further move away from a purely complaint-driven enforcement model. The legislation also introduces Vietnam’s first statutory stay-down obligation. Under the E-Commerce Law and Decree 248, major digital platforms must maintain automated systems capable of reviewing, warning against, and removing unlawful listings while also implementing measures to prevent repeat violations, defined under Decree 248 as conduct that has previously been identified and handled by the platform, but continues to recur. This obligation addresses one
Read More
July 27, 2026
Tilleke & Gibbins’ intellectual property specialists have authored the Thailand chapter of Trade Secrets 2026 from Chambers and Partners. This global guide examines the legal frameworks governing trade secret protection, enforcement, and litigation across jurisdictions worldwide. The Thailand chapter provides a comprehensive overview of the country’s legal regime for protecting confidential business information, covering the legal framework, trade secret misappropriation, litigation procedures, remedies, and dispute resolution. Some topics covered include: Protectable trade secrets Reasonable measures to maintain secrecy Employee confidentiality Trade secret licensing Civil and criminal remedies Litigation procedures and injunctions Damages and other remedies Mediation and arbitration The guide also examines practical issues relating to safeguarding trade secrets, defending against allegations of misappropriation, and managing trade secret disputes in Thailand. Chambers and Partners’ Global Practice Guides provide in-house counsel with authoritative commentary on practical legal issues affecting business, enabling readers to compare legislation and procedures across multiple jurisdictions. The Thailand chapter of Trade Secrets 2026 is available as a PDF through the button below. The full guide can be accessed for free on the Chambers and Partners website.
Read More
July 27, 2026
In March 2025, Thailand’s Central Intellectual Property and International Trade Court (IP&IT Court) issued a landmark judgment in favor of Luckin Coffee, China’s leading retail coffee chain. The judgment marked a significant turnaround following earlier trademark litigation involving Luckin Coffee from 2021 to 2023 that had generated widespread public attention and raised questions about the protection available to legitimate foreign brand owners in Thailand. In a significant subsequent development, Thailand’s Court of Appeal for Specialized Cases has now affirmed the IP&IT Court’s judgment in its entirety. The appellate decision brings clarity to one of Thailand’s most closely watched trademark disputes. Significantly, this is the first case in Thailand to formally recognize the trademark squatting principle. The Court of Appeal confirmed that Luckin Coffee has a better right to the disputed mark and ordered cancellation of the defendants’ trademark registration—a key application of the “better right” doctrine. The court also upheld the substantial damages awarded at first instance, providing important guidance on assessing harm from systematic trademark squatting. Award-Winning Judgment Affirmed in Its Entirety The significance of the first-instance judgment extended beyond the outcome for Luckin Coffee. The IP&IT Court judgment was subsequently recognized in the IP&IT Court’s Distinguished Judgment Awards in 2025, reflecting the complexity, novelty, and legal significance of the issues considered in the case. The defendants nevertheless appealed the judgment, challenging several key aspects of the IP&IT Court’s decision. Luckin Coffee continued to entrust Tilleke & Gibbins as their sole attorney to pursue the case at the appellate level. After considering the defendants’ appeal and Luckin Coffee’s submissions in response, the Court of Appeal affirmed the first-instance judgment in its entirety. The judgment was announced on July 8, 2026. Better Right to the Marks The Court of Appeal confirmed Luckin Coffee’s superior rights. The orders include cancellation
Read More