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

August 11, 2011

Guide to Doing Business in Thailand for Japanese Investors

Subscribe to Updates
Tilleke & Gibbins and Nishimura & Asahi

This Japanese-language Guide to Doing Business in Thailand was prepared by Tilleke & Gibbins in collaboration with Nishimura & Asahi, the Lex Mundi member firm for Japan. Written for potential Japanese investors in Thailand, the guide provides an overview of the Thai legal system, structures for doing business, and foreign investment regulations. It introduces other aspects of Thai law relevant to investment activities, including the following:

  1. How the courts and legal profession are organized, with an overview of fee arrangements.
  2. Legal requirements for selling goods/providing a service in Thailand, the correlating forms of business organizations that can be set up, the procedures (time, cost), and any other legal obligations.
  3. The different types of companies recognized in Thailand, the process of incorporating them, and the subsequent protection provided to shareholders, particularly minority shareholders.
  4. General corporate governance norms, the sharing of profits, and directors’ liability and responsibilities.
  5. Potential restrictions on foreign-owned Thai companies from raising capital or debt in Thai markets.
  6. The legal requirements for liquidation and winding up a company, as well as the Bankruptcy Act B.E. 2483 (1940).
  7. Foreign investment regulations (with reference to the Foreign Business Act B.E. 2542 (1999) and the Investment Promotion Act B.E. 2520 (1977)) covering subsidiaries and the foreign ownership of land.
  8. An overview of labor law in Thailand and regulations on maximum working hours, termination, leave, contract covenants, and stock options.
  9. An overview of intellectual property law in Thailand and the types of IP protected, international treaties, and regulatory authorities concerned.
  10.  Currency controls in place, particularly on amounts of local and foreign currency allowed in and out of the country.
  11. Methods of M&A available to Thai companies, and the process, timing, regulations, and forms of restructuring available to foreigners.
  12. Criteria determining a company’s tax liabilities and types of tax payable.
  13. A brief outline of the civil procedure in Thailand, foreign judgment enforcement, forms of alternative dispute resolution, and laws governing arbitral awards.

To learn more about how Tilleke & Gibbins can assist Japanese investors in Thailand, please contact Torajiro Ohashi at [email protected].

Download Full Article
Related Professionals

Practices

Antitrust and Competition

Banking and Finance

Corporate/M&A

Customs and International Trade

Dispute Resolution and Litigation

Employment

Intellectual Property

Tax

Location

RELATED INSIGHTS​ 

August 7, 2026
On July 31, 2026, the Trade Competition Commission of Thailand (TCCT) launched a one-month public consultation period on proposed regulatory guidelines for competition in three business segments: (1) digital platforms; (2) modern trade and credit terms; and (3) ride-hailing and on-demand delivery, including food delivery and mart/quick commerce. At the same time, the TCCT released a market report on ride hailing and on-demand delivery that is likely to influence the guidelines and their interpretation and enforcement. The consultation runs until August 31, 2026. Stakeholders have a limited window to submit practical, evidence-based input that may shape the next phase of Thailand’s regulatory framework for competition. Scope of the Consultation The public consultation targets updating existing guidance in three business sectors that have experienced transformative growth and structural change: Digital platforms: The TCCT has actively monitored this sector in recent years and has coordinated with other regulators, primarily the Electronic Transactions Development Agency (ETDA) and the Ministry of Commerce. In March 2026 the TCCT’s Guidelines on Multi-Sided Platforms and E-Commerce Businesses took effect, and in July the TCCT established a digital platform subcommittee to regulate and prevent unfair trade practices in digital platform businesses. This activity followed a TCCT market report on e-marketplace businesses in September 2025. Modern trade and credit terms: This sector was the focus of the TCCT’s 2019 Guidelines on Unfair Trade Practices between Wholesale and Retail Operators and Manufacturers or Suppliers (widely known as the “Modern Trade Guidelines”) , as well as its 2021 Guidelines on Unfair Trade Practices regarding the Credit Terms under which Small and Medium Enterprises (SMEs) Sell Products or Services to a Purchaser (also known as the “Credit Term Guidelines”), which were amended the following year. Ride-hailing and on-demand delivery (including food delivery and quick commerce): The TCCT published the Guidelines on
Read More
August 6, 2026
Introduction: A Trademark Paradox in Sustainable Packaging Walk into any Thai supermarket, and the label-free water bottle is no longer a novelty. Thailand’s packaging market, valued at approximately USD 15.68 billion in 2025, is shifting toward minimalist, plastic-light designs as ESG pressures reshape how brands present their products. The country generated roughly 5.68 million tons of plastic waste in 2021, with a recycling rate of only 19 percent, and regulators are now considering rules that would allow label-free bottled water relying on embossing, laser printing, or QR codes instead of wrap-around labels. As packaging itself becomes the brand identifier, a paradox emerges: designs built to say the least often struggle hardest for protection under Thai intellectual property law. The Trademark Barrier: When Shape Is Not Enough Section 7, paragraph 2(10) of the Thai Trademark Act deems a shape distinctive only if it is not the natural form of the goods, is not necessary to achieve a technical result, and does not add value to the goods. The Department of Intellectual Property’s 2022 examination guidelines apply this test conservatively, as the following examples illustrate. A plain water bottle relying on subtle contours to signal its brand is typically read as just another bottle, not a source identifier. Acquired distinctiveness offers a theoretical escape route, but it demands extensive evidence of sales, advertising, and consumer recognition—an especially heavy burden for new entrants whose minimalist packaging has not yet achieved market prominence. The result is a structural bias against precisely the design innovation that sustainability goals are meant to encourage. Design Patents: A Partial, Imperfect Substitute Design patent protection, covering a product’s shape, configuration, or ornamentation, appears to offer an alternative route. In practice, it is constrained by the same forces driving the minimalist trend. Because many brands converge on similar solutions—clear
Read More
August 6, 2026
Every month, VAT-registered businesses in Thailand calculate their output and input VAT and file a return to pay the net amount due or claim a refund. Yet a common and costly dispute arises when a business that has paid input VAT to its supplier—and done everything asked of it—later finds that input VAT rejected on the grounds that the tax invoice was issued by “a person not entitled to issue tax invoices.” In these cases, a buyer may have confirmed the supplier’s VAT registration on the Revenue Department’s website, paid through the banking system, received a complete tax invoice, and kept full payment and inventory records. Even so, if the Revenue Department later determines that the supplier did not genuinely make the sale or collected the VAT without remitting it, the department can disallow the input VAT and assess additional tax, surcharge, and penalty—often more than a year after the transaction. A new article from tax and dispute resolution specialists at Tilleke & Gibbins in Bangkok examines how the Revenue Department and the courts approach these disputes, including two recent Supreme Court (Tax Division) decisions confirming that the taxpayer bears the burden of proving a supplier genuinely sold and delivered the goods and received payment. It considers why the VAT registration system offers no legal safe harbor, why the evidentiary burden falls hardest on online and cross-border transactions where buyers and sellers never meet, and how the Revenue Department’s own digital infrastructure could detect non-remitting suppliers at the source rather than shifting the loss to good-faith buyers. The article also sets out practical guidance: how to build a comprehensive “know-your-supplier” file at the time of a transaction, the procedural steps and strict deadlines for challenging a VAT assessment, and why dispute readiness belongs alongside tax planning at the center
Read More
August 4, 2026
Intellectual property (IP) protection sometimes hinges on fame and recognition. However, this alone will not always be sufficient to overcome an IP dispute when it involves contractual obligations or registered rights. Below are five cases from around the world that tackle some of the basic issues in IP registration, ownership, commercialization, and enforcement. 1. USA: Taylor Swift Trademark Application Refused Taylor Swift recently filed a trademark application to register “The Life of a Showgirl,” which is the title of her 12th studio album. When examining a trademark application, the examiner considers various factors before deciding whether it should be registered. One of these factors is whether there is a likelihood of confusion (i.e., would a regular consumer mistake the origin of the trademark). In Taylor Swift’s case, the US Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO) decided that that there would be a risk of confusion. This decision was based on the existing registered trademark, “Confessions of a Showgirl,” owned by Maren Wade, which was registered in 2015. The USPTO refused Taylor Swift’s application based on the shared key distinctive element “of a showgirl,” the lack of sufficient distinguishing terms, the marks being used in overlapping markets (entertainment and performances), and because consumers may assume a common commercial source. Maren Wade then filed a lawsuit in California against Taylor Swift and her affiliated companies, arguing that Taylor Swfit’s branding is confusingly similar in structure, wording, and overall commercial impression to her registered mark. She is also drawing on the USPTO’s refusal of Taylor Swift’s application to support her argument of a likelihood of confusion. A judgment has not yet been reached in this case, but it serves as an important reminder of the importance of satisfying the essential elements required for IP registration. 2. Australia: Katy Perry v. Katie Perry In
Read More