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

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.

RELATED INSIGHTS​ 

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
July 27, 2026
Vietnam’s new E-Commerce Law, which took effect on 1 July 2026 along with its implementing Decree No. 248/2026/ND-CP (Decree 248), marks a significant development in the country’s approach to online intellectual property (IP) enforcement, reflecting a clear shift from a reactive model of intermediary liability to one that expects platforms to play a more active role in preventing infringement. From notice-and-takedown to platform responsibility The most significant change introduced by the E-Commerce Law is the transformation of the legal role of e-commerce platforms. The existing safe harbor provisions under the IP Law and the copyright notice-and-takedown regime established by Decree 17/2023/ND-CP (Decree 17) largely required intermediaries to act only after receiving notice of infringement. Once infringing content had been removed, the platform’s legal obligation was generally considered fulfilled. The new legislation adopts a fundamentally different approach. Article 17 of the E-Commerce Law requires intermediary platforms to screen information relating to goods and services before publication in order to prevent listings involving counterfeit or IP-infringing goods, and goods of unknown origin. Rather than relying exclusively on complaints from rights holders, platforms are now expected to implement preventive measures before infringing listings become publicly available. Decree 248 further requires platforms to update keyword filters based on recommendations issued by competent authorities. These filtering mechanisms are intended to prevent prohibited listings from appearing on the platform and represent a further move away from a purely complaint-driven enforcement model. The legislation also introduces Vietnam’s first statutory stay-down obligation. Under the E-Commerce Law and Decree 248, major digital platforms must maintain automated systems capable of reviewing, warning against, and removing unlawful listings while also implementing measures to prevent repeat violations, defined under Decree 248 as conduct that has previously been identified and handled by the platform, but continues to recur. This obligation addresses one
July 27, 2026
Tilleke & Gibbins’ intellectual property specialists have authored the Thailand chapter of Trade Secrets 2026 from Chambers and Partners. This global guide examines the legal frameworks governing trade secret protection, enforcement, and litigation across jurisdictions worldwide. The Thailand chapter provides a comprehensive overview of the country’s legal regime for protecting confidential business information, covering the legal framework, trade secret misappropriation, litigation procedures, remedies, and dispute resolution. Some topics covered include: Protectable trade secrets Reasonable measures to maintain secrecy Employee confidentiality Trade secret licensing Civil and criminal remedies Litigation procedures and injunctions Damages and other remedies Mediation and arbitration The guide also examines practical issues relating to safeguarding trade secrets, defending against allegations of misappropriation, and managing trade secret disputes in Thailand. Chambers and Partners’ Global Practice Guides provide in-house counsel with authoritative commentary on practical legal issues affecting business, enabling readers to compare legislation and procedures across multiple jurisdictions. The Thailand chapter of Trade Secrets 2026 is available as a PDF through the button below. The full guide can be accessed for free on the Chambers and Partners website.
July 27, 2026
In March 2025, Thailand’s Central Intellectual Property and International Trade Court (IP&IT Court) issued a landmark judgment in favor of Luckin Coffee, China’s leading retail coffee chain. The judgment marked a significant turnaround following earlier trademark litigation involving Luckin Coffee from 2021 to 2023 that had generated widespread public attention and raised questions about the protection available to legitimate foreign brand owners in Thailand. In a significant subsequent development, Thailand’s Court of Appeal for Specialized Cases has now affirmed the IP&IT Court’s judgment in its entirety. The appellate decision brings clarity to one of Thailand’s most closely watched trademark disputes. Significantly, this is the first case in Thailand to formally recognize the trademark squatting principle. The Court of Appeal confirmed that Luckin Coffee has a better right to the disputed mark and ordered cancellation of the defendants’ trademark registration—a key application of the “better right” doctrine. The court also upheld the substantial damages awarded at first instance, providing important guidance on assessing harm from systematic trademark squatting. Award-Winning Judgment Affirmed in Its Entirety The significance of the first-instance judgment extended beyond the outcome for Luckin Coffee. The IP&IT Court judgment was subsequently recognized in the IP&IT Court’s Distinguished Judgment Awards in 2025, reflecting the complexity, novelty, and legal significance of the issues considered in the case. The defendants nevertheless appealed the judgment, challenging several key aspects of the IP&IT Court’s decision. Luckin Coffee continued to entrust Tilleke & Gibbins as their sole attorney to pursue the case at the appellate level. After considering the defendants’ appeal and Luckin Coffee’s submissions in response, the Court of Appeal affirmed the first-instance judgment in its entirety. The judgment was announced on July 8, 2026. Better Right to the Marks The Court of Appeal confirmed Luckin Coffee’s superior rights. The orders include cancellation