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

Subscribe to Updates
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.

Download Full Article
Related Professionals

Practices

Intellectual Property

Location

RELATED INSIGHTS​ 

July 24, 2026
As food innovation continues to accelerate, manufacturers are increasingly introducing ingredients derived from new sources, produced using novel technologies, or lacking a significant history of human consumption. While these innovations create new opportunities for the food industry, they also raise important questions regarding consumer safety. For this reason, many jurisdictions, including Thailand, the European Union, Australia and New Zealand, Canada, and Singapore, require a premarket safety assessment for novel food ingredients before they can be placed on the market. The objective of this assessment is to ensure that each ingredient is safe for its intended use and level of consumption, does not present toxicological, allergenic, microbiological, or nutritional concerns, and will not mislead consumers. Scientific authorities typically evaluate the ingredient’s identity, manufacturing process, composition, specifications, anticipated dietary exposure, toxicological information, nutritional impact, and history of use before determining whether it can be marketed. Against this background, the Thai Food and Drug Administration (FDA) recently took an important step toward improving regulatory transparency by publishing, for the first time, a consolidated public list of substances that have successfully completed the Thai FDA’s safety assessment process, including substances determined to be novel foods and those determined not to fall within the novel food category. The list identifies the approved substances, the corresponding manufacturers or importers, approval dates, and the approved conditions of use. Although the publication does not change the existing legal framework governing novel food approvals, it provides businesses with greater visibility into the Thai FDA’s regulatory precedents and the types of substances that have previously been accepted through the safety assessment process. The full announcement is available on the Thai FDA’s website. As the list is now publicly available, it also provides useful insight into the types of substances that have successfully completed the Thai FDA’s safety assessment process.
Read More
July 24, 2026
Indonesia has updated its fee framework for intellectual property (IP)-related government services, with implications for IP owners, licensees, lenders, digital platforms, and businesses operating in the country. Government Regulation No. 30 of 2026 on Types and Tariffs of Non-Tax State Revenue Applicable to the Ministry of Law (GR 30/2026) was promulgated on July 2, 2026, and will take effect on August 1, 2026. Key Takeaways GR 30/2026, which replaces the relevant IP service fees under Government Regulation No. 45 of 2024, reorganizes the fee schedule into separate categories for copyright, industrial designs, patents, layout designs of integrated circuits, trade secrets, trademarks, geographical indications, IP enforcement, and other categories. The most commercially relevant changes include a new copyright recordation tariff exemption for songs and music, higher fees for several trademark and geographical indication services, new IP enforcement service fees, and a new fee type for registration of fiduciary security over IP rights objects. In addition, this is the first major update for trademark fees in approximately 10 years. GR 30/2026 is significant not only as a fee update but also as a further indication of Indonesia’s increasing recognition of IP as a financeable commercial asset. By expressly assigning fees to the registration of fiduciary security over IP rights objects, the regulation places IP-backed collateral filings within the Ministry of Law’s administrative service framework. While GR 30/2026 does not create a new secured-transactions regime, this development is relevant for lenders, borrowers, and IP owners structuring financing arrangements secured by trademarks, patents, copyrights, industrial designs, or other registrable IP rights in Indonesia. Copyright: New Fee Exemption for Songs and Music Recordation For copyright, GR 30/2026 creates a fee-exempt category for recordation of works or related-rights products for songs or music, while maintaining a separate category for other works and related-rights products. It
Read More
July 21, 2026
Thailand’s Ministry of Digital Economy and Society (MDES) published a notification establishing an expedited court-ordered takedown mechanism for online content in cases of “urgent necessity.” The notification, which was issued on July 17, 2026, under the Computer Crime Act B.E. 2550 (2007), as amended, took effect the following day. It significantly expands the categories of content subject to rapid government-initiated removal. Content Categories Subject to Takedown The notification defines “urgent necessity” (section 20, paragraph 5, of the Computer Crime Act) as circumstances where any delay in suppressing computer data may impact national security, religion, the monarchy, good morals, social culture, or public order. In this regard, it establishes four broad categories of content: Computer Crime Act offenses. National security offenses. IP and other criminal offenses, where it is contrary to public order or good morals and a competent officer has requested its suppression. Content contrary to public order or good morals, a broad residual category encompassing 14 subcategories approved by the Computer Data Screening Committee. The fourth category is the most expansive. Its 14 subcategories include: Content defaming, mocking, satirizing, or devaluing the monarchy. Online gambling advertising or facilitation. Offering illegal firearms for sale. Offering baraku (hookah) products or e-cigarettes for sale. Offering cannabis inflorescences or processed cannabis products for sale. Advertising or soliciting prostitution. Content inciting violence, hatred, or social division. Unauthorized overseas employment advertising. Offering boiled kratom juice for sale. Online sale or advertising of alcoholic beverages. Content satirizing or degrading Buddhism. Money lending at interest rates exceeding legally prescribed limits. Advertising or disseminating information about surrogacy services. Forgery of documents, cards, or official documents. Enforcement Procedure In cases of urgent necessity, a competent official assigned by the MDES permanent secretary must file a petition with supporting evidence to the court with jurisdiction, requesting an order to
Read More
July 15, 2026
Ambush marketing refers to a strategy in which a business associates itself with an event, campaign, or brand without paying for official sponsorship rights. The tactic is most visible in sports, concerts, and festivals, where official sponsors have invested substantially for exclusivity. Ambush marketers may use suggestive wording, event-themed imagery, athlete endorsements, venue-adjacent promotions, or social media campaigns implying a commercial connection with the event. Common Forms of Ambush Marketing Ambush marketing typically takes one of the following forms: Direct ambushing: using event names, logos, or mascots suggesting authorization Coattail ambushing: sponsoring an athlete or broadcaster connected with the event Subtle ambushing: themed advertising, venue-adjacent campaigns, or similar visual cues The legal analysis in each case turns on whether the marketing crosses from permissible event-based advertising into infringement, passing off, deception, or wrongful exploitation of goodwill, and the risk assessment is necessarily fact-specific. Thailand has no dedicated ambush marketing statute, so legality depends on execution. A campaign that merely comments on a public event may be permissible, but one that uses protected marks, creates consumer confusion, misrepresents sponsorship status, or makes unsubstantiated claims may trigger liability under various Thai laws, as laid out below. Ambush Marketing and Thailand’s Trademark Act The Trademark Act B.E. 2534 (1991) is the primary tool for addressing campaigns that use registered trademarks, event names, logos, mascots, or confusingly similar signs. The law gives registered trademark owners the exclusive right to use their mark for registered goods, and infringement risk arises when a nonsponsor uses an event mark or a confusingly similar sign in advertising. Even referential or playful use may create liability if it causes public confusion as to sponsorship or commercial connection. The law also preserves passing-off claims for unregistered marks. This matters because event names, taglines, or mascots may not always be
Read More