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 13, 2026
When Decree No. 186/2026/ND-CP (Decree 186) takes effect on July 15, 2026, it will introduce the most significant reform of Vietnam’s administrative IP enforcement framework since Decree 99/2013/ND-CP was issued in 2013. These changes are expected to make administrative enforcement faster, more accessible, and better suited to the realities of modern IP disputes. Below are the principal reforms and their practical implications for rights holders and enforcement practitioners. The End of Notarization and Consular Legalization Among the most welcome procedural changes is the abolition of the notarization and consular legalization requirement for powers of attorney (POA) submitted in administrative enforcement proceedings. Under the previous regime, foreign rights holders were generally required to execute a POA, then have it notarized and consular legalized (if seeking customs recordal). In practice, this process frequently delayed enforcement by four to eight weeks, often long enough for infringing goods to disappear before authorities could intervene. Decree 186 removes this bottleneck, now requiring only an original or certified copy of the POA. If the document is in a foreign language, a Vietnamese translation is sufficient, provided it is certified by a competent authority or confirmed by the authorized Vietnamese IP representative. Consular legalization and notarization are no longer required. For rights holders, the practical impact is substantial. Administrative enforcement files that previously took weeks to prepare can now be completed in a matter of days, allowing much faster responses in time-sensitive matters such as warehouse raids, border interventions, and trade-fair enforcement. The decree also introduces a useful administrative simplification. Where an original POA has already been submitted to the same enforcement authority and remains valid, applicants may rely on a copy of that earlier submission by identifying the previous case file. This eliminates unnecessary duplication for rights holders pursuing multiple enforcement actions before the same
Read More
July 9, 2026
Recycling, upcycling, and refill-packaging models are now widely promoted as ways to reduce waste, lower carbon emissions, and respond to consumer demand for sustainable products. However, complications arise when these environmentally driven trends intersect with intellectual property law—particularly where reused or altered packaging continues to display third parties’ registered trademarks. Adding to this complexity, Thailand’s draft Sustainable Packaging Management Act aims to introduce new environmental compliance obligations that businesses must navigate alongside existing trademark concerns. Recycling and upcycling packaging may infringe trademark rights, especially in cases not protected by the first-sale doctrine—the principle that a trademark owner’s rights over a particular mark-bearing product end once the owner first sells it. Furthermore, even refill packaging carries legal risk due to specific statutory prohibitions under Thai law. Compounding these challenges, the draft Sustainable Packaging Management Act will impose extended producer responsibility (EPR) obligations on manufacturers and brand owners, requiring them to manage packaging throughout its lifecycle. These overlapping legal frameworks could deter manufacturers from pursuing ESG-aligned business models unless businesses understand how to navigate both trademark and environmental requirements. Under Thai law, this issue remains uncertain because the Trademark Act does not expressly codify the first sale doctrine, also known as the exhaustion of trademark rights. Generally, this doctrine provides that once a trademark owner has lawfully sold goods bearing its trademark, the owner’s right to control further resale of those particular goods is exhausted. The rationale is that the owner has already received commercial benefit from the first authorized sale; therefore, the purchaser should be free to resell or otherwise dispose of the goods. Although the doctrine is not expressly codified in the Trademark Act, Thai courts have recognized it in relation to genuine goods and parallel imports, as seen in a Supreme Court Judgment No. 2817/2543 in which the
Read More
July 6, 2026
Indonesia’s regulation on reporting online intellectual property (IP) infringement provides comprehensive procedural guidance for IP rights holders and their licensees in reporting online infringement complaints. Issued in December 2025 by the Ministry of Law as Regulation No. 47 of 2025 regarding Handling of Intellectual Property Infringement Reports in Electronic Systems, this regulation covers all types of IP rights. It also specifies documentation when reporting infringement, and lays out the procedures for examination, verification, and enforcement actions. Submission of Complaints Complainants may submit reports through the online system of the Directorate General of Intellectual Property (DGIP) or in person at the DGIP office. Complaints may also be filed through an authorized proxy. Under the regulation, complainants are required to provide the following information and documents: Personal details of the complainant; Brief description of the protected work or subject matter (i.e., type of IP and name or address of the infringing website, portal, account, or application, or a link to the location of the infringing content); Complete description of the alleged infringement; Certificate of registration or recordal of the relevant IP; Recordal of IP license agreement, if any; and Other supporting evidence. Verification and Examination Process Upon receiving a complaint, the responsible formality officer may request clarification or additional supporting documents. In the latter case, the complainant must then submit the necessary administrative documents within 14 days of the notification date. Once the documentation is deemed complete and sufficient, the case will be formally registered. Subsequently, the DGIP will establish a verification team to handle online IP violations, which will include the Civil Servant Investigator (PPNS), the Ministry of Communication and Digital Affairs, experts with relevant expertise in IP, and representatives from related associations such as AVISI (Indonesian Video Streaming Association). After examining the report, the team will prepare the Minutes
Read More
June 30, 2026
Customs recordation is an enforcement mechanism in Myanmar that enables intellectual property (IP) rights holders to seek prevention of the cross-border movement of infringing goods. The enactment of Myanmar’s IP laws in 2019 has enabled customs recordation for registered marks and copyrights under the Trademark Law 2019 and the Copyright Law 2019. By contrast, the Patent Law 2019 and the Industrial Design Law 2019 do not provide a practical framework for customs recordation, and accordingly such rights are not subject to the customs recordation regime. Under the Trademark Law 2019, rights holders may apply for customs recordation and may also ask the Customs Department to suspend the release of goods suspected of bearing counterfeit marks. Likewise, the Copyright Law 2019 allows for customs intervention in relation to pirated works. These provisions reflect Myanmar’s gradual alignment with international standards on border measures, although the implementation framework remains at a relatively early stage of development. Customs Recordation Pursuant to the Trademark Law 2019 and the Copyright Law 2019, the relevant authorities have issued customs rules concerning the protection of registered marks and copyrights. In practice, the process generally begins with the submission of an application to the Customs Department together with supporting documentation. This typically includes proof of registration in Myanmar; details of the rights holder, applicant, and any authorized representative; and a comprehensive description of the genuine goods. Product identification materials—such as photographs, packaging samples, and distinguishing features—are particularly important in helping customs officers identify suspected infringing goods. A recordation remains valid for two years from the date of approval. It may be renewed for additional two-year terms, provided that the renewal application is filed within the thirty days prior to expiry for marks and up to thirty days in advance of the expiry date for copyrights, in accordance with
Read More