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​ 

September 21, 2026
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
Read More
September 14, 2026
Myanmar’s first-to-file trademark registration regime under the Trademark Law 2019—which became fully operational in April 2023—provides mark owners with enhanced legal protection compared with the country’s former system. Correspondingly, the current system imposes more rigorous statutory requirements for obtaining, maintaining, and enforcing rights in marks. In this first-to-file trademark registration system, however, evidence of use remains particularly significant, as it may establish acquired distinctiveness, support a claim that a mark is well-known, and strengthen the owner’s position in both registration and enforcement proceedings. Accordingly, it can be said that this framework is underpinned by three key concepts: distinctiveness, well-known status, and, importantly, use of the trademark. Trademark Distinctiveness Under the Trademark Law, signs that lack distinctiveness are generally ineligible for mark protection. These signs include generic terms, basic shapes, unstylized single letters or numerals, and signs that merely describe the kind, quality, quantity, intended purpose, value, geographical origin, production time, or other characteristics of the relevant goods or services. However, a mark that would otherwise be refused on distinctiveness or descriptiveness grounds may be registrable if it has acquired distinctiveness through its use prior to the filing date. To show this, the applicant must demonstrate that the mark became distinctive to relevant consumers through continuous, exclusive, and good-faith use in trade within Myanmar. The burden of proving acquired distinctiveness rests with the mark owner. Accordingly, sufficient evidence demonstrating both use of the mark and the level of consumer recognition attained should be prepared in advance. Well-Known Mark Criteria Myanmar’s Trademark Rules, which govern the substantive examination of mark registration applications, establish criteria for determining well-known marks, aligned with international standards. Where an applicant claims well-known status—whether to overcome a refusal on relative grounds or to oppose a third party’s registration—the registrar will assess the claim based on the following
Read More
September 14, 2026
On August 23, 2026, Vietnam’s National Assembly passed Law No. 11/2026/QH16, amending the country’s Customs Law with effect from March 1, 2027. The amendments represent a substantial reform of Vietnam’s customs-based intellectual property enforcement regime. The reforms come amid considerable external pressure. In its 2026 Special 301 review, the US Trade Representative (USTR) designated Vietnam a “priority foreign country,” citing widespread counterfeiting, weak border enforcement, limited ex officio customs powers, and the absence of controls over goods in transit. Vietnam’s legislative response signals a commitment to bringing its border enforcement practices into line with international expectations. For IP rights holders operating in or through Vietnam, the amended law introduces several tools that substantially strengthen enforcement options at the border. Closing the Transit Gap One of the most consequential amendments is the extension of IP-related customs enforcement to goods in transit. Previously, Vietnam’s customs regime applied IP controls only to goods being imported or exported, a gap the USTR had specifically identified as enabling infringing goods to pass through Vietnamese ports with impunity. Vietnam’s geographic position as a logistics hub for Southeast Asia means that substantial volumes of goods transit its ports and free-trade zones. Extending enforcement to cover these shipments brings Vietnam closer to the standard set by the EU’s customs enforcement regulation and addresses a longstanding concern of multinational brand owners whose goods are frequently counterfeited in the region. Strengthened Suspension and Ex Officio Powers The amended law introduces a dual-track suspension mechanism (Article 73(2)). Customs authorities will suspend clearance upon request by an IP rights holder (or authorized representative) who provides evidence of IP ownership, evidence of infringement, and a financial guarantee. Customs can now proactively suspend clearance on an ex officio basis if, during inspection and monitoring, they discover “clear grounds” to suspect that imported, exported,
Read More
September 7, 2026
Indonesia’s Constitutional Court (Mahkamah Konstitusi) has reinstated a key provision limiting pharmaceutical patent protection, signaling a renewed commitment to balancing patent rights with public access to medicines. In its ruling to Case No. 255/PUU-XXIII/2025, the court partially granted a petition for judicial review of Law No. 65 of 2024, which had amended the country’s Patent Law, and ordered the restoration of a provision that had excluded certain pharmaceutical inventions from patentability. The decision took effect immediately upon its pronouncement at the court’s plenary session on August 28, 2026. Background The petition challenged the removal of article 4(f) from Law No. 13 of 2016 concerning Patents (Patent Law), as amended by Law No. 65 of 2024. Article 4(f) had excluded from patentability certain inventions relating to new uses of known substances. The petitioners argued that removing this provision would open the door to patent protection for second medical use inventions and facilitate patent evergreening—practices that can extend exclusivity periods, delay generic market entry, and reduce public access to affordable medicines. The petitioners included several patient advocacy and public-interest organizations: the Indonesian Dialysis Patients Community Association, the Indonesian Association of Drug Abuse Victims (PKNI), the Indonesian Pulmonary Hypertension Foundation (YHPI), the Rekat Peduli Indonesia Foundation, and the Indonesian Positive Women’s Association (IPPI), along with the Indonesia for Global Justice Association and four individual petitioners. The petitioners also challenged the constitutionality of the phrase “interested party” in article 70(1) of the Patent Law, arguing that it should be construed expressly to clarify who has standing to appeal a decision to grant a patent before the Board of Patent Appeal, and to allow a broader range of parties—such as patent holders, licensees, consumer organizations, prosecutors, aggrieved third parties, and others who may suffer direct or indirect harm from the grant of a patent—to
Read More