Arbitration under Thai law rests on consent. Section 11 of the Arbitration Act B.E. 2545 (2002) requires an arbitration agreement to be in writing and signed by the parties. This may also be satisfied by communications, an unchallenged allegation in pleadings, or incorporation by reference to a document containing an arbitration clause. A non-signatory cannot, as a general rule, be compelled to arbitrate merely because it participated in the transaction, received a benefit, or belongs to the corporate group of a signatory. Thai law nevertheless permits arbitration agreements and awards to affect third parties indirectly in limited circumstances. Under section 24, an arbitration clause is separable from the main contract; the invalidity of the contract does not invalidate the clause. In Supreme Court Judgment No. 3918/2563, an apparent sales contract concealed a construction contract and was void under the Civil and Commercial Code. However, the concealed construction contract and written arbitration clause remained effective. The tribunal had jurisdiction, and its award was enforceable under the Arbitration Act. Under the Arbitration Act, when a claim or liability is validly transferred, the transferee is bound by the related arbitration agreement. This includes assignment, transfer of obligations, legal succession, and subrogation. Depending on the facts and contract and agency law, consent may arise through execution by an authorized agent, ratification, assumption of obligations, or conduct accepting the contract and its arbitration clause. Thai law respects separate corporate personality. The group-of-companies doctrine has no statutory basis under the Arbitration Act, while alter egos or sham allegations require compelling evidence and an identifiable legal basis. Supreme Court Judgment No. 9161/2568 illustrates the procedural treatment of non-signatories. A consultancy contract required LCIA arbitration seated in Dubai. When the employer sued a consultant and his spouse in Thailand concerning a housing loan, the court disposed of

Tilleke & Gibbins has contributed the Thailand chapter to Shipping Law 2026 from the International Comparative Legal Guides (ICLG) series published by Global Legal Group. This comprehensive guide provides detailed legal analysis of shipping laws, regulatory frameworks, and maritime dispute resolution across key maritime jurisdictions worldwide. Each chapter follows a structured Q&A format, organized into critical sections covering key aspects of maritime law and practice, including: Marine casualties, collision liability, pollution regimes, salvage, and general average Marine cargo claims, statutory carrier obligations, liability limits, and misdeclaration of cargo Maritime passenger claims, personal injury liabilities, and consumer case procedures Vessel arrest, counter-security, provisional attachment, and maritime liens Evidence preservation, perpetuation procedures, and electronic document disclosure Court jurisdiction, specialized IP&IT litigation, arbitration, and alternative dispute resolution (ADR) Enforcement of foreign court judgments and arbitral awards under the New York Convention 1958 Offshore wind energy initiatives, regulatory permits, and cabotage restrictions Sector developments, including the Landbridge project and decarbonization trends The Thailand chapter, authored by Noppramart Thammateeradaycho and Panchaya Rattanaumnuaishai, examines these topics in detail, highlighting key statutory regimes such as the Carriage of Goods by Sea Act (COGSA), the Arrest of Ships Act, and the jurisdiction of the Central Intellectual Property and International Trade (IP&IT) Court. The complete Thailand chapter is available as a PDF below. The Thailand chapter—and the full Shipping Law 2026 guide—are also freely available on the ICLG website.

Thailand’s first-to-file trademark system has a serious vulnerability: it lacks both an explicit mechanism for refusing bad-faith registrations and any means of invalidating them in court after the five-year limitation period has expired. While brand owners worldwide confront trademark squatting, Thailand’s statutory silence stands out, particularly in light of AIPPI’s 2017 Resolution Q249, which recommended that every jurisdiction provide clear tools to address bad faith at all stages of the trademark lifecycle. Nearly a decade later, Thailand has yet to act. This article proposes a concrete reform blueprint, drawing on the legislative models of China, the United Kingdom, and the European Union. The Statutory Gap Under the Thai Trademark Act B.E. 2534, no provision expressly authorizes examiners to reject an application on grounds of bad faith. Section 8(10) addresses well-known marks but offers no relief where the targeted mark lacks well-known status. Practitioners have resorted to Section 8(9)—which bars marks “contrary to public order, morality, or public policy”—as a workaround. However, this provision was designed to address the characteristics of the mark itself, not the applicant’s intent. Thai Supreme Court decisions have split on whether it can reach bad-faith conduct, creating persistent legal uncertainty. The gap extends beyond examination. Civil actions to cancel a bad-faith registration must be brought within five years—a deadline that frequently expires before foreign brand owners discover the squatted mark. Cancellation through the Board of Trademarks remains available but is slow, costly, and subject to court appeal, leaving bad-faith registrations in force during protracted proceedings. The system effectively rewards squatters and penalizes legitimate owners. Lessons from International Best Practices Several major jurisdictions have already closed this gap. China’s 2019 amendment to Article 4 of the Trademark Law introduced an absolute ground for refusal: “bad faith trademark applications without intent to use shall be rejected.” Bad

In August 2026, Vietnam’s Ministry of Industry and Trade released a draft decree to replace Decree No. 35/2020/ND-CP detailing certain articles of the Competition Law (Decree 35). The key changes under the draft decree and their implications for M&A transactions in Vietnam are summarized below. Definition of “Management Body” Decree 35 uses the term “management body” (bộ phận điều hành) as one of the criteria to determine the group of affiliated enterprises for the purpose of merger filing. However, there is no definition of the term, leaving enterprises without a basis on which to apply it consistently. The draft decree introduces a statutory definition of “management body,” being a person or group of persons who (i) own more than 50% of charter capital or voting shares; (ii) hold ownership or use rights over more than 50% of an enterprise’s assets; (iii) are an enterprise manager under enterprise law; or (iv) have decision-making power over the enterprise’s resolutions, daily business operations, or business and investment plans. This helps enterprises better assess the scope of merger filing. Determination of Relevant Product Market Under Decree 35, the relevant product market is defined solely by reference to goods and services interchangeable in characteristics, intended use, and price without accommodating digital or zero-price products. The draft decree expands the relevant product market to include “products” (sản phẩm) in addition to traditional “goods and services,” which captures digital information products, AI products, and other novel offerings. Additionally, it adds “other relevant competitive factors” such as quality of products, goods, and services for determining the relevant product market, supplementing the existing factors of characteristics, intended use, and price. This addresses cases where price substitutability is not meaningful for certain consumers or users, i.e., zero-price products. Determination of Relevant Geographic Market Under Decree 35, only physical geographic