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 26, 2016

Large Seizures of Counterfeit Goods by Thai Customs

Subscribe to Updates
Informed Counsel

Consumer spending peaks in the last quarter of every year—a time that coincides with the holiday season and end-of-year bonus payouts. It is also during this time that the greatest number of counterfeit goods are imported into Thailand for sale to consumers, and it is a busy time of year for Customs officials, who are responsible for preventing these illegal activities.

In November 2015, two trucks departed from a warehouse in Chachoengsao, a province in eastern Thailand, heading for Bangkok. En route, the trucks were stopped by a Customs officer, who found that they contained more than 100,000 suspected counterfeit items valued at over THB 100 million. The Customs officer, who worked for Suppression and Prevention Bureau II, then seized the trucks, along with their allegedly illicit content.

At the time of the seizure, Customs did not know whether the goods were genuine or counterfeit, and the owner of the seized goods could not demonstrate that taxes had been paid on the goods. Customs therefore filed a legal charge against the owner under Sections 16, 17, and 27 bis of the Customs Act.

It was then found that the owner of the seized goods did not directly import the goods, but only purchased the goods from an importer who had failed to pay the requisite taxes.

Customs regulations hold that if an individual commits an offense relating to the purchase of goods while knowing that taxes have not been paid on the goods, and the offender agrees to settle the case by surrendering the seized goods to the state, Customs has the authority to close the case and confiscate the goods. This would usually result in the goods being placed at auction.

In this case, however, as the goods included a myriad of different brands and each brand owner or their representative confirmed that the goods were in fact counterfeit in nature, the seized goods were instead destroyed.

The November 2015 seizure is representative of a broader trend for Thai Customs officials: Seizures of fake goods are becoming more frequent, and they are involving larger quantities of high-value products. Thai government statistics, which run on a fiscal year (FY) of October 1 through September 30, support this analysis.

In FY 2014, Customs conducted 770 seizures. This figure increased to 847 in FY 2015, representing a 10 percent year-on-year increase in the number of seizures. The rise in the monetary value of the seized goods was even more dramatic. The total value of the seized goods in FY 2014 was THB 74.7 million, but this figure increased to THB 170.8 million in FY 2015—a remarkable increase of 129 percent.

These figures demonstrate that Customs is effectively cooperating with IP owners and monitoring for infringement to prevent the importation of counterfeit goods into Thailand, as well as their exportation to other countries. As the suppression of counterfeit goods is a core policy of the Thai government and the Royal Thai Customs Department, this growth trend is likely to continue in the year ahead.

To ensure that these successes do indeed continue, brand owners should cooperate with Customs to assist in the verification of seized goods. Without cooperation, Customs cases will become protracted and genuine goods that are seized will not be properly returned to legitimate importers.

Customs Seizures at the Border

In this large case in November 2015, Customs made its seizure while the goods were being shipped within Thailand, rather than at the border. If the seizure had instead been made at the border, a different legal scenario would have been applicable.

When a seizure is made at the border, the importer is considered to be the offender. If each brand owner or their representative confirms that the seized goods are counterfeit, Customs will proceed according to Section 27 of the Customs Act and Sections 110(1) and 108 of the Trademark Act.

Under Section 27, Customs has the authority to fine an importer up to four times the value of the seized goods. If the infringer agrees to pay the fines, the seized goods will be stored and later destroyed. At this point, the criminal action would be deemed final and the trademark owner cannot file a complaint with the police for this offense.

But if the importer does not comply with the Customs order, the case will be referred to the police for prosecution. The police will take approximately six months to investigate the case. The responsible case officer will then forward the case to the public prosecutor, along with his or her opinion on whether the infringer should be prosecuted. If the public prosecutor finds that the case has merit, he or she will file a complaint with the Intellectual Property and International Trade Court.

Download Full Article
Related Professionals

Practices

Intellectual Property

Location

RELATED INSIGHTS​ 

August 20, 2026
As part of its membership in Lex Mundi, Tilleke & Gibbins has released the latest edition of its Guide to Doing Business in Thailand, providing an overview of the legal, regulatory, and commercial considerations for companies establishing or expanding operations in Thailand. The 2026 edition offers practical insight into the country’s business environment, investment framework, and operational requirements. The guide covers a wide range of topics relevant to foreign and domestic investors, including: Investment incentives and promotion schemes Financial facilities and banking regulations Exchange controls and money transfers Import and export regulations Business structures and incorporation options Requirements for establishing a business Operational and compliance considerations Business cessation and insolvency procedures Employment and labor laws Taxation Immigration and visa requirements Prepared by Tilleke & Gibbins lawyers across multiple practice areas, the publication outlines key aspects of doing business in Thailand, including foreign investment restrictions, regulatory compliance obligations, corporate structures, employment requirements, and recent legal and economic developments affecting investors. The publication forms part of Lex Mundi’s Country Guides series, a global collection of jurisdiction-specific reference materials prepared by member firms around the world. Together, these guides help companies evaluate opportunities, compare regulatory environments, and plan international business activities across multiple markets. The full Guide to Doing Business in Thailand 2026 is available through the button below.
Read More
August 13, 2026
Modern agricultural machinery is no longer purely mechanical but instead technology dependent. Modern tractors, harvesters, and other farm equipment increasingly incorporate embedded software, electronic control units, sensors, and digital diagnostic systems. While such technologies enhance efficiency, productivity, and precision farming, they also affect the manner of equipment repair and maintenance. As a result, farmers and independent repair providers may have little practical choice but to rely on authorized dealers, even for routine maintenance and repairs. Section 36 of Thailand’s Patent Act reflects the principle that the authorized sale of a patented invention usually exhausts the exclusive right of the patent owner over the specific product. This means that upon legal sale of the patented product, it can typically be used or resold without further authorization from the patent holder. This principle is relatively straightforward when applied to traditional mechanical equipment. Ownership of a machine ordinarily carries with it the practical ability to diagnose faults, replace worn parts, and restore the equipment to working order. Modern agricultural machinery, however, increasingly depends on embedded software, proprietary diagnostic systems, firmware updates, and other digital resources that may remain under the control of the manufacturer or patent holder. This tension lies within the “right to repair” debate. In the United States, on July 8, 2026, the Federal Trade Commission and five states announced a settlement with Deere & Company resolving allegations that Deere had unlawfully restricted farmers’ and independent repair providers’ ability to repair their equipment. Under the terms of the settlement, for the next ten years, Deere must provide repair resources, including software capabilities, on terms equivalent to those provided to authorized dealers. The Deere settlement highlights that the nature of ownership is changing, but legal concepts have not kept pace. Traditional patent-law concepts, including patent exhaustion, were developed with physical products
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 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