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 11, 2026
On July 27, 2026, the State Bank of Vietnam (SBV) released a draft decree proposing amendments to Decree No. 52/2024/ND-CP dated May 15, 2024, on non-cash payments (Decree 52). The draft decree would amend 17 of Decree 52’s 38 articles, with several key changes directly affecting providers of intermediary payment service (IPS). The key proposed changes affecting IPS providers are outlined below. Streamlining IPS Licensing Procedures A central objective of the draft decree is to simplify regulatory procedures for IPS providers. Notably, it would significantly reduce IPS licensing documentation requirements by removing the need to submit enterprise registration certificates, investment registration certificates, and documents evidencing the qualifications of the legal representative and general director. Instead, the SBV would retrieve this information directly from national business registration and other specialized databases, requesting additional documents only where the relevant information cannot be verified electronically or is incomplete. The draft decree also removes the current limit of two rounds for dossier supplementation and shortens processing timelines for several IPS licensing procedures such as issuance, amendment, and reissuance of IPS licenses. The processing time for new IPS license applications would be thereby reduced from 90 to 60 working days. In addition, several continuing IPS business conditions would be removed. For example, IPS providers would no longer be required to maintain certain representations relating to corporate restructuring or the legality of contributed capital. Likewise, the IPS project plan (đề án) would become a one-time application document rather than an ongoing licensing condition. If retained in the final decree, this change could provide IPS providers with significantly greater flexibility to implement post-licensing technology upgrades, system integrations, and corporate restructuring transactions without needing to revisit the originally approved project plan. The draft decree also removes the requirement for the SBV to consult the Ministry of Public
Read More
August 10, 2026
Thailand has finalized its social media KYC (“know your customer”) rules under Notification of the Electronic Transactions Commission on Measures to Prevent Technological Crimes for Social Media Service Providers (No. 2), which was published in the Government Gazette on May 5, 2026, and will take effect on November 1, 2026. While an early draft of the notification proposed requiring social media platforms to arrange identification of every user account, the final notification is significantly more targeted, focusing on paid online advertising and advertiser identity verification. Though the regulatory initiative primarily aims to combat online fraud and technology-related crimes, it also has important consequences for intellectual property enforcement, because the verified platform records that will be generated under the new requirements can help IP rights holders to identify anonymous online infringers. Key Regulatory Mandates The notification requires social media service providers to verify the identity of advertisers before their paid advertisements are published and disseminated in Thailand through social media, regardless of whether the advertising fees come from the advertisers or third parties. Verification of an advertiser is valid for one year, after which verification would have to be performed again before the platform could publish additional paid advertisements from the advertiser. Permitted verification methods are specified under the notification. A platform may verify an advertiser by checking identity evidence and confirming the connection between the advertiser and that identity evidence, with the notification giving facial comparison against certain government-issued identity documents as an example. Alternatively, platforms may verify advertisers through a digital identity verification and authentication system with an identity-proofing assurance level not lower than the level prescribed by Thailand’s Electronic Transactions Commission. The notification further requires platforms to retain only the advertiser’s information necessary to identify the advertiser, beginning from the start of the advertising activity and for
Read More
August 10, 2026
On July 31, 2026, Thailand’s Big Data Institute (BDI) launched a public consultation on the principles of a proposed new data-sharing law, with comments accepted until August 31, 2026. If enacted, the law would establish Thailand’s first comprehensive framework for government and private-sector data sharing, creating a systematic, secure, and transparent regime to support analytics, policymaking, research, and innovation. Central Data-Sharing Platform The draft law establishes a central system for data sharing, managed by the BDI. Government agencies would be required to connect to the BDI’s Data Integration and Intelligence Platform (also referred to as D2), in accordance with the BDI’s rules and procedures. Five Dimensions of Data Sharing The draft law covers five key types of data sharing between government (G), businesses (B), and consumers (C): G2B: Private organizations may request government data specifically for research and development purposes. The BDI will assess the applicant’s data governance, security, and privacy capabilities whether such measures meet prescribed standards before forwarding the request to the relevant government agency within 90 days. Any dispute may be escalated to a newly established Data-Sharing Promotion Committee for final determination. G2G: Government agencies may request data from other agencies through the central system. The data-holding agency must respond within 90 days, taking legality, necessity, proportionality, public interest, and personal data protection into account. Disputes may be referred to the Data-Sharing Promotion Committee for adjudication. B2G: In emergency situations involving public safety, economic security, or disaster response, the Minister of Digital Economy and Society may require private entities to provide data through the central data-sharing system. Government agencies must specify the data requested, demonstrate its necessity and expected benefits, and request only data reasonably available to the data holder. Requests for personal data must be limited to the minimum amount necessary. B2C: Royal decrees may
Read More
August 10, 2026
Thailand’s Office of the Personal Data Protection Committee (PDPC) recently released draft guidance on records of processing activities (ROPA) for personal data controllers and processors under the Personal Data Protection Act B.E. 2562 (2019) (PDPA). The draft guidance, which was presented to the public on July 7, 2026, addresses both controller records of collection, use, and disclosure of personal data and processor records of processing activities carried out on behalf of controllers. If implemented, the guidance will significantly expand organizational expectations for ROPA preparation, maintenance, and use across all sectors. Key Takeaways The draft guidance contains several important implications for organizations subject to the PDPA: ROPA reframed as a core accountability tool. The guidance elevates ROPA from an administrative record to a central accountability mechanism, connecting controller duties with recordkeeping obligations. ROPA as a source for privacy notices and governance documents. ROPA should serve as the primary source for privacy notices and align with consent management, retention schedules, DPIAs, incident response plans, and vendor contracts. Expanded scope across all activities. ROPA must cover all processing activities across the organization—including security, finance, HR, and external contractors—with correct controller or processor classification for each. Ongoing maintenance and auditability. ROPA must be updated for any change to systems, purposes, or processors, reviewed at least annually, and maintained with version control and a designated owner. Enhanced vendor, processor, and cross-border transfer requirements. Organizations must document all processors, external recipients, and cross-border transfers, specifying purposes, access scope, and destination countries. Linkage with risk assessment, DPIAs, and LIAs. ROPA should assign risk levels to each activity and identify when data protection impact assessments (DPIAs) or legitimate interests assessments (LIAs) are required, functioning as a risk-management tool. ROPA and data breach readiness. Incomplete ROPA can delay breach response and notification. Organizations should map data flows, vendors,
Read More