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 15, 2022

E-commerce Platforms Team Up with Brand Owners and Government to Fight Online Counterfeiting in Thailand

Subscribe to Updates
World Trademark Review

The sale of counterfeit goods online is as damaging to government efforts and consumer safety as it is to the reputation of the e-commerce platforms and brand owners involved. In this guest piece, Andy Chua, senior vice president of the IP Rights Protection Team at e-commerce giant Lazada, joins Tilleke & Gibbins’ Suebsiri Taweepon and Ploynapa Julagasigorn to discuss how stakeholders can work together to combat the growing threat of counterfeits online – with recent efforts in Thailand a prime example of effective action. This article, which was first published in World Trademark Review, is the second in a two-part series about trademark enforcement against online counterfeits.

 

Technological developments, government policy and the covid-19 pandemic have brought about significant changes to the lifestyle and behaviour of ordinary consumers. Shopping increasingly takes place on e-commerce platforms as people become more familiar with online transactions, encouraging many sellers to turn their focus to online platforms. While this shift to online retail has brought benefits for many, it has also provided additional ways for sellers of counterfeit goods to peddle their wares.

The sale of counterfeit goods online tarnishes the reputation of e-commerce platforms among users, compromises consumer trust in brand owners’ products and undermines public authorities’ efforts in enforcing anti-counterfeiting policies. This dynamic problem cannot be resolved by a single entity alone. Instead, all stakeholders need to work together to amplify their efforts in consumer and brand protection.

Collaborating against counterfeits in Thailand

We see such collaborations between stakeholders in regions such as Thailand, where the Department of Intellectual Property (DIP) has signed a memorandum of understanding (MOU) with various parties that are committed to combatting the spread of counterfeit products online. The inaugural signing ceremony for the MOU was held on 11 January 2021, with 20 initial signatories drawn from the public sector (eg, the DIP, the Department of Business Development and the Department of International Trade Promotion), rights holders, e-commerce platforms (including Lazada) and law firms (including Tilleke & Gibbins).

Since the ceremony, signatories have been actively participating in activities to ensure the effectiveness of the MOU. The first meeting of members was held on 11 March 2021, where members had the opportunity to:

  • share information on infringement activities;
  • collaborate in monitoring and reporting counterfeit products across online platforms;
  • encourage and work towards the adoption of a standard cross-platform reporting system; and
  • discuss obstacles and solutions in pursuing counterfeiters.

By the time of the follow-up meeting on 19 July 2021, a further 10 stakeholders had signed the MOU. At this meeting, members discussed the information that should be required from sellers to register on platforms and the terms that should apply between platforms and sellers. They also discussed strategies for raising public awareness of IP infringement and shared crucial information on successful anticounterfeiting cases.

In October 2021, a focus group of IP owners, law firms and online platforms met to discuss the reporting systems of different platforms, building on the challenges to effective enforcement identified at the previous meetings. Members discussed the IP infringement reporting systems that they use, listing all the documents that are required by each platform and identifying the need to set standard practices for all online marketplaces in Thailand.

The DIP has been entrusted to coordinate with stakeholders to develop guidelines on standard reporting systems. The guidelines will allow users to easily understand and comply with the requirements of any platform, making it much easier for users to work with platforms to protect their IP rights online.

Panasonic case yields positive results through cooperation

Close collaboration between e-commerce platforms, brand owners, law firms and government authorities led to several successful anticounterfeiting activities over the course of 2021.

A prime example of this was the successful raid of more than 80,000 counterfeit Panasonic batteries on 18 May 2021. The case began when Panasonic, which had been monitoring online marketplaces, found suspected counterfeit products being sold on the Lazada platform by several shops sharing the same address.

An investigation was opened, and Lazada worked closely with Panasonic to help identify the infringers. Tilleke & Gibbins then assisted Panasonic in locating and identifying the stockroom containing the counterfeit goods and in coordinating with government officers.

This collaboration led to a raid action by the Thai Police Economic Crime Suppression Division and the seizure of more than 80,000 counterfeit Panasonic batteries – the largest-ever seizure of Panasonic products in the Asia-Pacific region. The cooperation between Lazada, Panasonic, Tilleke & Gibbins and the Thai enforcement authorities resulted in the successful removal of these counterfeit products from the market to the benefit of platforms, brand owners and consumers alike.

Looking ahead

While much has been achieved, there are still several significant challenges to combatting IP infringement online. The sale of counterfeit goods on social media, for example, remains a major issue, highlighting the need for social media companies to become signatories of the DIP’s MOU.

Another problem is the way in which infringers obscure their identities by registering fake information with the platforms on which they operate. Rather than taking down individual webpages, brand owners must be able to identify stockrooms in order to uproot counterfeiters completely.

E-commerce platforms, IP owners, law firms and government authorities are continuing to work together to identify and develop solutions to these issues. In spite of the challenges, close and active collaboration between these stakeholders will pave the way to making the Internet uninhabitable for counterfeiters.

Related Professionals

Industries

Technology

Practices

Intellectual Property

Location

RELATED INSIGHTS​ 

August 4, 2026
Thailand’s Personal Data Protection Act B.E. 2562 (2019) (PDPA) could soon see some important changes, as a draft bill to amend the PDPA has been introduced in the House of Representatives. The draft amendment is currently in the public consultation phase, with comments accepted from July 16 to August 15, 2026. If enacted in its current form, the amendment would make three key changes: expanding the government exemption to cover anticorruption operations, introducing a statutory definition of “government agency,” and restructuring the lawful bases for personal data processing to align with international standards. Background The PDPA has encountered several enforcement challenges since its implementation, including three core problems identified by the bill’s sponsors: (1) the current exemptions for government agencies do not cover anticorruption and misconduct-prevention operations; (2) the PDPA lacks a clear statutory definition of “government agency,” causing legal uncertainty as to which entities are covered; and (3) the existing framework for lawful bases of data processing does not align with international standards—particularly the multiple-lawful-bases system in the EU’s General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR)—making compliance inflexible for both government and private sector entities. Expanded Government Exemption The current PDPA exempts government agencies performing duties related to national security (including fiscal security), public safety, anti-money laundering, forensic science, and cybersecurity. The proposed amendment adds “prevention and suppression of corruption and misconduct” to this list of exempted functions. This would allow anticorruption bodies—most notably the National Anti-Corruption Commission (NACC), which is identified as a directly affected party—to collect, use, and disclose personal data without being subject to PDPA requirements when carrying out their duties. New Statutory Definition of “Government Agency” Notably, while the current PDPA use the term “government agency” in several provisions, the term is not comprehensively defined, creating potential uncertainty as to its scope. The draft bill therefore
Read More
August 3, 2026
On July 23, 2026, the Bank of Thailand (BOT) released for public comment its draft Notification on Digital Channel Security, which would significantly expand the scope and stringency of Thailand’s existing mobile banking security framework. If finalized in its current form, the draft notification would extend mandatory security requirements to credit card providers and credit providers, cover internet banking in addition to mobile applications, phase out SMS one-time passwords (OTPs) for transaction authentication, and introduce biometric verification requirements for high-value transactions. The public comment period is open through August 24, 2026. Background The BOT’s existing Mobile Banking Security Notification, issued in 2024, sets minimum security standards for financial institutions, specialized financial institutions (SFIs), and e-money providers, significantly reducing “money-draining app” fraud. However, fraudsters have since shifted to nonbank providers and internet banking channels, prompting the BOT to propose broader security requirements. Expanded Scope of Regulated Entities and Channels The existing Mobile Banking Security Notification covers only financial institutions, SFIs, and e-money providers offering mobile banking services. The draft expands coverage in two key areas: entities and channels. On the entity side, it adds credit card providers and credit providers that offer fund transfers to third parties at other financial service providers or that provide cash withdrawal services to individual retail customers. On the channel side, it broadens coverage to include internet banking in addition to mobile banking. Strengthened Customer Authentication The draft introduces enhanced authentication requirements in three areas: Service enrollment and device changes. Providers must implement rigorous identity verification, notify customers of enrollment results through out-of-band communication channels, and adopt risk-mitigation measures such as cooling-off periods and temporary transaction limits. Transaction-level authentication. Providers must use two-factor authentication for fund transfers, cardless ATM withdrawals, and transaction limit increases. Secure authentication factors. Key requirements include the following: “What-you-know” factors must
Read More
July 28, 2026
Data protection officers (DPOs) have become a fixture of Thailand’s privacy compliance landscape since the Personal Data Protection Act B.E. 2562 (2019) (PDPA) took full effect and the Office of the Personal Data Protection Committee (PDPC) began requiring certain organizations to appoint them. On July 7, 2026, the Office of the PDPC presented draft guidance on DPOs as part of a public consultation on a series of draft personal data protection manuals and recommendations. The draft offers the clearest indication yet of how the regulator expects the DPO role to work in practice, addressing recurring implementation issues under the PDPA—including when an organization must appoint a DPO, how the DPO should operate independently, how to manage conflicts of interest, and how data subjects and regulators should be able to contact the DPO. Because it remains in draft, organizations have an opportunity to weigh the practical implications now before the guidance is finalized. When a DPO Must Be Appointed The draft guidance clarifies the triggers for mandatory DPO appointment, including: Regular and systematic monitoring of personal data or systems on a large scale, such as tracking, analyzing, or predicting behavior, attitudes, or individual characteristics. Core activities involving large-scale processing of sensitive personal data, such as health data, biometric data, or criminal records. Certain foreign-organization representative arrangements. Public-sector coverage under relevant notifications identifying government entities that must appoint a DPO. Processing involving 100,000 or more data subjects may be considered large-scale. The guidance also contemplates voluntary DPO appointment for organizations that wish to raise their privacy governance standards, and such organizations should still comply with the standards applicable to DPOs under the law. Independence and Reporting Lines The draft guidance identifies lack of DPO independence as a core risk because an ineffective or constrained DPO may be unable to raise deficiencies
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