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

April 19, 2013

Health and Safety and IP Must Go Hand in Hand

Bangkok Post, Corporate Counsellor Column

No one in their right mind would buy counterfeit medicines, chemicals, or car parts, yet there is a dark trade in these dangerous items in Asia—and it is on the increase. A recent case in March, as reported by the Bangkok Post, is a clear example of what must be tackled: “Thailand’s food chain and livestock industry faces a risk from imports of counterfeit glutaraldehyde, an organic compound used in disinfecting poultry and swine facilities” where up to 50% of the products found were fake.

Alarming reports are also coming from border areas with Cambodia, where the incidence of fake malaria drugs is skyrocketing. When consumers unknowingly use such fakes, malaria thrives.

To counter these trends, vigilance and suppression of counterfeit products among consumers, distribution channels, and government officials is now more important than ever.

Patent Protection

The authorities have a variety of legal grounds on which to prevent such trade. Key among these are intellectual property (IP) laws. In many cases, fake medicines and chemicals are transported unbranded out of China and into Vietnam, Cambodia, and Thailand. This means that the laws preventing unauthorized use of trademarks cannot be relied on (as is usually the case when it comes to counterfeits of, say, designer handbags or clothing). Authorities and rights holders must therefore look to patent law to try to enforce their rights to stop these dangerous goods from entering the market.

Patent rights cover the actual invention, such as the molecule or the process by which a pharmaceutical or chemical has been made. Such patents are granted by governments to the inventors on the basis that they improve the product or process over what has gone before it (referred to as “the prior art”).

Of course, to be able to enforce these rights, a patent has to be accepted for registration by the relevant local patent office first. Yet many patent offices in Southeast Asia, Thailand included, face enormous delays in granting such patents. It can take more than 14 years to get such a patent in Thailand.

Given that the protection period is 20 years, this is a significant and unacceptable delay. The Thai Patent Office knows this is a problem and is investing time and money to improve its processes, including the introduction of Patent Examination Guidelines for its patent examiners.

Free Trade Talks

These examination delays—and the health and safety implications for consumers—are an issue that will surely be raised in the free trade agreement (FTA) talks that have recently begun between the European Union (EU) and Thailand. In terms of imported goods into Thailand, the EU stands third behind Japan and China, with these imports focusing heavily on machinery, transport equipment, pharmaceuticals, and medical equipment.

This existing large volume of trade has the potential to grow exponentially in the future, particularly with the increasingly free movement of goods, services, capital, and people in ASEAN from 2015 onward. Given the timing, this FTA could set Thailand up to be the major import hub for European goods and investment in ASEAN.

IP will feature prominently in the EU’s agenda. Only with a secure IP system can foreign direct investment reach its full potential. It is no secret that Thailand is one of the nations, along with China, that has not had a perfect track record when it comes to IP protection and enforcement.

The Department of Intellectual Property (DIP) has shown a strong commitment to improve the situation—for example, through the forthcoming Madrid Protocol accession enabling use of the international system of trademark registration, ex officio seizure of goods by the Customs Department, the growing number of raids by the DIP and police, and the increase in IP criminal matters being prosecuted at court.

But there remain several shortcomings in the IP system, and the EU may seek some commitments from Thailand to improve them. One of these areas is likely to be the process for granting patents for pharmaceuticals.

Quality Assurance for Medicines

Various NGOs have claimed that an FTA could have a negative effect on access to medicine in Thailand. In evaluating this claim, it is crucial to distinguish between the separate issues of patentability and access to medicine. We must also remember the crucial role that patent protection, along with other important IP rights, plays in preventing dangerous products from entering the market and the importance of empowering Customs officers and other officials to prevent distribution of such counterfeits.

Thai citizens need to be made aware that the patentability test actually ensures that only drugs that are genuinely new and inventive are awarded a monopoly. This complies with the global TRIPS (Trade Related Aspects of Intellectual Property Rights) regime and other IP treaties that Thailand has signed. This process actually improves the standard of healthcare by introducing better medicines for the Thai public. Companies that produce generally cheaper generic options are free to compete on products for which the patent has expired.

Pricing of drugs is always a debatable issue, but this is a matter of policy that may change according to the government’s position. Remember that Thailand ranks 24th in the world in terms of GDP. It is therefore by no means a poor nation or one that cannot afford to offer the best medicines to its citizens.

The issue of utmost importance is that Thailand puts in place rigorous patent protection and enforcement procedures, so that Thai citizens are assured that they have access to high-quality, genuine medicines.

RELATED INSIGHTS​ 

July 24, 2026
Indonesia has updated its fee framework for intellectual property (IP)-related government services, with implications for IP owners, licensees, lenders, digital platforms, and businesses operating in the country. Government Regulation No. 30 of 2026 on Types and Tariffs of Non-Tax State Revenue Applicable to the Ministry of Law (GR 30/2026) was promulgated on July 2, 2026, and will take effect on August 1, 2026. Key Takeaways GR 30/2026, which replaces the relevant IP service fees under Government Regulation No. 45 of 2024, reorganizes the fee schedule into separate categories for copyright, industrial designs, patents, layout designs of integrated circuits, trade secrets, trademarks, geographical indications, IP enforcement, and other categories. The most commercially relevant changes include a new copyright recordation tariff exemption for songs and music, higher fees for several trademark and geographical indication services, new IP enforcement service fees, and a new fee type for registration of fiduciary security over IP rights objects. In addition, this is the first major update for trademark fees in approximately 10 years. GR 30/2026 is significant not only as a fee update but also as a further indication of Indonesia’s increasing recognition of IP as a financeable commercial asset. By expressly assigning fees to the registration of fiduciary security over IP rights objects, the regulation places IP-backed collateral filings within the Ministry of Law’s administrative service framework. While GR 30/2026 does not create a new secured-transactions regime, this development is relevant for lenders, borrowers, and IP owners structuring financing arrangements secured by trademarks, patents, copyrights, industrial designs, or other registrable IP rights in Indonesia. Copyright: New Fee Exemption for Songs and Music Recordation For copyright, GR 30/2026 creates a fee-exempt category for recordation of works or related-rights products for songs or music, while maintaining a separate category for other works and related-rights products. It
July 21, 2026
Thailand’s Ministry of Digital Economy and Society (MDES) published a notification establishing an expedited court-ordered takedown mechanism for online content in cases of “urgent necessity.” The notification, which was issued on July 17, 2026, under the Computer Crime Act B.E. 2550 (2007), as amended, took effect the following day. It significantly expands the categories of content subject to rapid government-initiated removal. Content Categories Subject to Takedown The notification defines “urgent necessity” (section 20, paragraph 5, of the Computer Crime Act) as circumstances where any delay in suppressing computer data may impact national security, religion, the monarchy, good morals, social culture, or public order. In this regard, it establishes four broad categories of content: Computer Crime Act offenses. National security offenses. IP and other criminal offenses, where it is contrary to public order or good morals and a competent officer has requested its suppression. Content contrary to public order or good morals, a broad residual category encompassing 14 subcategories approved by the Computer Data Screening Committee. The fourth category is the most expansive. Its 14 subcategories include: Content defaming, mocking, satirizing, or devaluing the monarchy. Online gambling advertising or facilitation. Offering illegal firearms for sale. Offering baraku (hookah) products or e-cigarettes for sale. Offering cannabis inflorescences or processed cannabis products for sale. Advertising or soliciting prostitution. Content inciting violence, hatred, or social division. Unauthorized overseas employment advertising. Offering boiled kratom juice for sale. Online sale or advertising of alcoholic beverages. Content satirizing or degrading Buddhism. Money lending at interest rates exceeding legally prescribed limits. Advertising or disseminating information about surrogacy services. Forgery of documents, cards, or official documents. Enforcement Procedure In cases of urgent necessity, a competent official assigned by the MDES permanent secretary must file a petition with supporting evidence to the court with jurisdiction, requesting an order to
July 15, 2026
Ambush marketing refers to a strategy in which a business associates itself with an event, campaign, or brand without paying for official sponsorship rights. The tactic is most visible in sports, concerts, and festivals, where official sponsors have invested substantially for exclusivity. Ambush marketers may use suggestive wording, event-themed imagery, athlete endorsements, venue-adjacent promotions, or social media campaigns implying a commercial connection with the event. Common Forms of Ambush Marketing Ambush marketing typically takes one of the following forms: Direct ambushing: using event names, logos, or mascots suggesting authorization Coattail ambushing: sponsoring an athlete or broadcaster connected with the event Subtle ambushing: themed advertising, venue-adjacent campaigns, or similar visual cues The legal analysis in each case turns on whether the marketing crosses from permissible event-based advertising into infringement, passing off, deception, or wrongful exploitation of goodwill, and the risk assessment is necessarily fact-specific. Thailand has no dedicated ambush marketing statute, so legality depends on execution. A campaign that merely comments on a public event may be permissible, but one that uses protected marks, creates consumer confusion, misrepresents sponsorship status, or makes unsubstantiated claims may trigger liability under various Thai laws, as laid out below. Ambush Marketing and Thailand’s Trademark Act The Trademark Act B.E. 2534 (1991) is the primary tool for addressing campaigns that use registered trademarks, event names, logos, mascots, or confusingly similar signs. The law gives registered trademark owners the exclusive right to use their mark for registered goods, and infringement risk arises when a nonsponsor uses an event mark or a confusingly similar sign in advertising. Even referential or playful use may create liability if it causes public confusion as to sponsorship or commercial connection. The law also preserves passing-off claims for unregistered marks. This matters because event names, taglines, or mascots may not always be
July 13, 2026
When Decree No. 186/2026/ND-CP (Decree 186) takes effect on July 15, 2026, it will introduce the most significant reform of Vietnam’s administrative IP enforcement framework since Decree 99/2013/ND-CP was issued in 2013. These changes are expected to make administrative enforcement faster, more accessible, and better suited to the realities of modern IP disputes. Below are the principal reforms and their practical implications for rights holders and enforcement practitioners. The End of Notarization and Consular Legalization Among the most welcome procedural changes is the abolition of the notarization and consular legalization requirement for powers of attorney (POA) submitted in administrative enforcement proceedings. Under the previous regime, foreign rights holders were generally required to execute a POA, then have it notarized and consular legalized (if seeking customs recordal). In practice, this process frequently delayed enforcement by four to eight weeks, often long enough for infringing goods to disappear before authorities could intervene. Decree 186 removes this bottleneck, now requiring only an original or certified copy of the POA. If the document is in a foreign language, a Vietnamese translation is sufficient, provided it is certified by a competent authority or confirmed by the authorized Vietnamese IP representative. Consular legalization and notarization are no longer required. For rights holders, the practical impact is substantial. Administrative enforcement files that previously took weeks to prepare can now be completed in a matter of days, allowing much faster responses in time-sensitive matters such as warehouse raids, border interventions, and trade-fair enforcement. The decree also introduces a useful administrative simplification. Where an original POA has already been submitted to the same enforcement authority and remains valid, applicants may rely on a copy of that earlier submission by identifying the previous case file. This eliminates unnecessary duplication for rights holders pursuing multiple enforcement actions before the same