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​ 

April 23, 2026
Vietnam has progressively positioned blockchain as a strategic technology within its broader digital transformation agenda over the past decade. From early policy orientations to more recent legislative developments, the regulatory approach has gradually shifted from high-level recognition to more concrete legal integration. Against this backdrop, a new draft decree regulating activities relating to product and goods identification, authentication, and traceability (the “Draft Decree”) marks a notable turning point. Rather than merely referencing blockchain as a policy priority, the Draft Decree incorporates blockchain directly into a nationwide regulatory system, positioning it as part of the underlying infrastructure for data governance and public administration in relation to the management, verification, and traceability of product-related data. Evolution of Vietnam’s Blockchain Legal Framework: The Draft Decree in Context Vietnam’s blockchain legal framework has developed in several distinct phases. The first phase, beginning around 2019, was characterized by high-level policy recognition in several resolutions of the Party Central Committee. Particularly, blockchain was identified as part of the broader category of digital technologies critical to industrial modernization and participation in the Fourth Industrial Revolution. These resolutions did not regulate blockchain directly, but established its strategic importance at the national level. The second phase (2023 to 2025) saw the introduction of national strategies and technology policies that more explicitly recognized blockchain as a priority technology. Those policies collectively signaled a clear policy commitment to developing blockchain infrastructure and applications. However, these instruments remained largely at a policy-level and did not establish binding regulatory frameworks. The third phase (from 2025) involves the gradual integration of blockchain into sectoral legislation. Laws such as the Law on Digital Technology Industry (2025), the Law on Personal Data Protection (2025), and the Law on Science, Technology, and Innovation (2025) have introduced concepts such as digital assets, crypto assets, and even specific
Read More
April 21, 2026
Thailand’s Personal Data Protection Committee (PDPC) has launched a public consultation period on a draft notification setting out criteria for data subject access requests (DSARs). The draft notification addresses practical uncertainties in handling DSARs by introducing standardized procedural requirements for data controllers. The consultation period runs from April 16 to May 15, 2026. The notification will enter into force 30 days from the date of its publication in the Government Gazette. Key Features of the Draft Notification The draft notification covers the following key areas: Scope of information subject to access. Data controllers must enable data subjects to access at least the following upon request: (1) personal data collected directly from them; (2) personal data obtained from other sources; and (3) the source of personal data obtained from other sources without consent. Information required under section 23 of the PDPA and information that must be recorded pursuant to section 39 of the PDPA—such as the categories of personal data collected and purposes of processing—must also be made available. Submission channels and formal requirements. Data controllers must provide at least in-person and postal channels for DSARs, while electronic or other channels are optional. Requests may be made either directly by the data subject or through an authorized representative, and must be signed and include sufficient identifying information, a preferred response method, and DSAR details. Identity verification documents (and proof of authority if the request is through a representative) are required, and additional documentation may be requested for verification or communication purposes. Data controllers may use different verification methods for DSARs submitted via electronic or other channels, provided this does not create undue obstacles to the exercise of data subject rights. Verification and response timelines. Data controllers must complete preliminary verification within seven business days of receiving a request. If a
Read More
April 10, 2026
Thailand has introduced new regulatory guidance requiring digital platform operators to adopt structured, transparent, and fair fee practices. On March 16, 2026, the Electronic Transactions Development Agency (ETDA) published Announcement No. DPS 2/2569, titled “Guidelines for Transparency and Fairness in Digital Platform Service Fee Determination,” issued under the Royal Decree on Digital Platform Service Business Operations B.E. 2565 (2022). The guidelines establish a framework governing how digital platform operators should set, disclose, and adjust fees charged to users and related service providers such as logistics and payment providers. Although framed as best-practice guidance rather than legally binding rules with explicit penalties, the guidelines carry regulatory weight under the royal decree and represent a significant step toward structured governance of digital platform fee practices in Thailand. The guidelines establish various transparency principles and divide fees into two distinct categories—compulsory and additional—with specific governance principles for each. Transparency Principles The guidelines recommend that digital platform operators adopt several transparency measures to ensure that users can fully understand the costs of using a platform. Fee catalog. All fees should be consolidated into a single, accessible location, which should include the fee name, definition, scope of covered services, calculation methodology, rate, billing period, and calculation examples. Minimum service disclosure. Operators should disclose the minimum service that users can expect, such as baseline visibility, product listing capabilities, access to transaction data, and back-end dashboard access. Price structure disclosure. Operators should disclose the categories of costs underlying their fees, such as system maintenance, cybersecurity, and operational costs. While exact cost figures need not be made public, operators should be able to provide numerical data to regulators upon request. Clear fee formulas. Fee calculations should be simple and easy to understand—for example, percentage of net sales, cost per order, or cost per product listing. Operators should
Read More
April 10, 2026
As digital commerce continues to reshape consumer behavior in Thailand, the Office of the Consumer Protection Board (OCPB) has been taking steps to review and update key regulations for online platforms. The OCPB has had a particular focus on addressing the risks posed by e-marketplace businesses—from misleading product information to fraudulent online transactions. Some of the regulator’s current legislative efforts related to Thailand’s labeling regulations as well as potential changes to the country’s law on direct sales and marketing. Proposed Changes to Consumer Protection Labeling Regulations On February 24, 2026, the OCPB convened a public hearing to review the Notification of the Committee on Labels re: Specification of Goods as Controlled Label Goods B.E. 2565 (2022) and its annex issued under the Consumer Protection Act. The closed-door session, which started the OPCD’s process of seeking feedback on the proposed changes, brought together representatives from government agencies, business operators, and consumer groups. The OCPB explained that its review of the labeling regulations aims to address regulatory gaps arising from evolving commercial practices, particularly the expansion of e-commerce and cross-border transactions. Authorities highlighted recurring issues involving product information that is unclear, incomplete, or potentially misleading in digital sales channels. The proposed revisions are intended to improve consumers’ access to accurate and complete product information, ensure that label disclosures remain relevant amid the growth of e-commerce, and strengthen protections against deceptive or misleading digital advertising. The review is being undertaken pursuant to the Consumer Protection Act B.E. 2522 (1979). As part of the initiative, the OCPB signaled a potential update to the categories of “controlled label products” as well as enhanced disclosure obligations for business operators, with the broader aim of promoting greater transparency, reinforcing operator accountability, and aligning Thailand’s labeling framework with current market conditions. The OCPB secretary general emphasized that
Read More