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

February 20, 2018

Draft Bill Provides Updates to Protection of New Plant Varieties in Thailand

Informed Counsel

The Department of Agriculture, Ministry of Agriculture, recently proposed a Draft Bill on the Plant Variety Protection (No. 2) (Draft PVP Bill) and released it for public hearing. The Draft PVP Bill aims to amend the Plant Variety Protection Act B.E. 2542 (1999) (PVP Act) so that Thai law is in compliance with the International Convention for the Protection of New Varieties of Plants, which came into force on March 19, 1991 (UPOV 1991). The current PVP Act was drafted based on UPOV 1978.

The major amendments to the Draft PVP Bill can be summarized are as follows:

Introduction of the “Essentially Derived Varieties” (EDV) Concept

The EDV concept was proposed to prevent the exploitation of protected varieties by engineering minor alterations of a protected initial plant variety, such as by using biotechnology and genetic engineering methods. Under this concept, cultivators of an EDV are unable to exploit their altered variety without permission from the rights holder of the initial variety. According to the Draft PVP Bill, to receive protection the EDV must share the genotype of the initial variety and must not be significantly different from that variety in its essential characteristics.

Introduction of “Harvested Materials” to New Plant Variety Rights

The current PVP Act gives a new plant variety owner the right to “propagating materials.” To comply with UPOV 1991, the Draft PVP Act will also confer an owner with rights to the “harvested materials” of the new plant variety, including rights to the products created from the “harvested materials” of the new plant variety.

Limitations of Plant Breeders’ Rights

The current PVP Act allows farmers to save seeds in an amount of up to three times the amount originally received. However, in the Draft PVP Bill, the owner of the new plant variety will have the right to save the seeds of the new plant variety for propagation, improvements to propagation, sale, offering for sale, and exportation and importation. The new plant variety owner’s rights will not include any acts conducted on the new plant variety that: (1) are not intended for propagating the plant variety; (2) are not intended for commercialization; or (3) are intended for research and development in plant breeding. Also exempted is where cultivation or propagation of a new plant variety is done by the farmer on his/her own land, or as allowed by the Ministry of Agriculture, with authorization by the Plant Variety Protection Commission.

Revision of Grace Period for “Novelty” of New Plant Varieties

The current PVP Act allows for a grace period of one year for propagating materials that will be sold or distributed within or outside of Thailand. To comply with UPOV 1991, the Draft PVP Bill amends the relevant provision to include a grace period for propagating material or harvested material that will be sold or distributed in any way within or outside of Thailand under the control of the plant breeder or another party designated by the plant breeder. For general plants, the grace period is one year if sold or distributed within Thailand and four years if sold or distributed outside Thailand. For trees or vines, the grace period is extended to six years.

Updates to the Protection Period for New Plant Varieties

The current PVP Act provides the following protection periods for new plant varieties: 12 years for fruit-bearing plants that bear fruit within two years from germination; 17 years for fruit-bearing plants that bear fruit beyond two years from germination; 27 years for trees that are used for timber or trees that bear fruit. To comply with UPOV 1991, the protection period under the Draft PVP Bill has been amended to extend protection of plants bearing fruit to be longer than set out in the current PVP Act. Counting from the issuance date of an owner’s Plant Variety Certificate, general plants will have 20 years of protection, and trees and vines will have 25 years of protection.

The Draft PVP Bill has already undergone a public hearing, but remains surrounded by controversy as there are complaints that it still lacks clarity on some points, with several exceptions in the bill granting the Ministry of Agriculture and the Plant Variety Protection Commission ultimate discretion in a number of matters. Most opposition to the Draft PVP Act is focused on the introduction of “harvested materials,” as new plant variety rights will be extended to include fruits, crops, and other food products, which in turn may affect food sustainability.

It seems likely that the Draft PVP Bill will need further revision and broader consensus, including review by the Thai Farmers Association, before the new law can be approved and implemented. It is anticipated that a revised Draft Bill will be completed and circulated for another hearing by the end of 2018.

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
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
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.
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