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 31, 2011

Licensee Issues in Thailand: Post-Termination Experiences

Subscribe to Updates
Informed Counsel

Thailand has long been a popular country for companies to have goods manufactured. It has a skilled labor force, especially when it comes to apparel, and it offers competitive labor costs. But it is vital to have strong license agreements in place when authorizing such companies to manufacture and/or distribute your goods to ensure that these benefits do not suddenly turn into problems.

For one reason or another, most license arrangements come to an end. However, care must be taken to ensure that the licensed activities also come to an end. A common problem in Thailand, and indeed in Asia, is that ex-licensees will continue to manufacture, distribute, or sell the goods following termination of the agreement. It is important to have very clear termination and phase-out clauses in the license agreement so that each party knows exactly what they are allowed to do following termination.

Clarity on such issues also makes recourse to the courts much easier, if the ex-licensee continues their activities when not authorized to do so. The unauthorized activities of the ex-licensee could qualify as breach of contract in addition to possible trademark infringement. In a situation where the written contract is clear and there is evidence that the ex-licensee is continuing to manufacture and distribute goods post-termination, what courses of action does the IP rights holder have?

Taking Action

It is unlikely that the police would want to get involved here, since they would deem it a civil matter. It would therefore be difficult to initiate a criminal raid action in such circumstances. An option definitely worth considering would be to apply for a search-and-seize order via the civil courts (the “Anton Piller” order). However, to ensure the highest chances of success in obtaining such an order from the court, the following criteria should be present:

  1. A strong prima facie case with clear legal grounds for the action.
  2. Risk of irreparable harm.
  3. An emergency situation

Having clear termination and phase-out clauses in a license agreement improves the strength of the prima facie case and legal grounds. Also, if the rights holder can gather actual evidence of the ongoing unauthorized manufacturing or other activities, this would give significant weight to the case.

As for risk of irreparable harm, there must be evidence of damage but also that such damage would not likely be recovered if the action proceeded to a final hearing. Demonstrating an emergency situation could be linked to the irreparable harm, but would normally involve goods being moved or evidence of infringement disappearing. In these circumstances, the civil search-and-seize order could be an efficient way to secure evidence of infringement and prevent further damage being done to the brand and indeed the local market.

Recent Experience

In a recent case handled by Tilleke & Gibbins, one of our apparel clients ended an agreement with a licensee that was authorized to distribute in Thailand and have goods manufactured by prior-authorized factories. Subsequent to the termination, our client wished to enter into another arrangement with a new licensee.

The problem was that the ex-licensee was continuing to instruct unauthorized factories. These factories were far below the standard that this client would normally authorize—not only in terms of quality, but also in relation to health and safety and labor law standards, including the employment of underage workers. The low-quality unauthorized product was flooding the market and lowering the brand value. This made the future licensee uneasy about signing up as the next distributor. The goods were being made in breach of contract, as there were clear phase-out provisions that were not being met, not to mention the substandard factories. Also, the unauthorized manufacturing constituted fresh acts of trademark infringement.

Taken together, these factors  provided a good prima facie case for our client to pursue action, but fairly weak arguments on the irreparable harm and emergency situation requirements for a search-and-seize (“Anton Piller”) order. During the course of considering what action to take, coincidentally, the ex-licensee commenced a clearance sale in Bangkok to try to get rid of all stock. Items were being heavily discounted at up to 90 percent off retail prices. This sale gave rise to the risk of irreparable harm and an emergency situation, since all the stock could well be sold within one to two weeks.

We were able to obtain the Anton Piller order against the ex-licensee as all three requirements for the order were present. The Court Execution Office carried out the execution of the order and seized all stock at the ex-licensee’s premises. This stock will now be held by the Court Execution Office until final resolution of the matter, either by judgment of the Court or settlement.

In the past few years, Anton Piller orders have not often been granted by the civil courts in a trademark infringement situation. However, this case shows that in certain circumstances, such as when dealing with a problematic ex-licensee, the Anton Piller order can prove to be an extremely helpful tool.

Download Full Article
Related Professionals

Practices

Intellectual Property

Location

RELATED INSIGHTS​ 

September 24, 2025
Online shopping in Thailand is more accessible than ever, with global platforms, local social media shops, and entertainment-driven social commerce enabling instant purchases. However, this convenience comes with rising concerns over digital intellectual property (IP) infringement, including counterfeit goods, pirated content, and unauthorized brand usage. At first glance, online platforms appear to offer quick solutions. Most major e-commerce sites, social media channels, and social commerce platforms provide “notice and takedown” systems, where IP owners can file complaints and request the removal of listings that infringe IP rights, such as trademarks and copyrights. These tools are certainly useful, as seeing a fake product vanish from a platform feels like progress. But the reality is less reassuring. The counterfeit goods themselves remain in warehouses, markets, or shops, ready to be resold. Sellers whose accounts are taken down often return within days under new names or accounts. In other words, a takedown is like cutting weeds without pulling out the roots: they always grow back. While notice and takedown tools are widely available and can be managed internally by most IP owners, their impact is often short-lived. IP owners seeking more effective, lasting protection need to take a more strategic and multilayered approach. The same applies to online piracy. Unauthorized streaming websites that offer free access to movies, TV shows, or sports broadcasts have become widespread in Thailand. To combat this, rightsholders can request website blocking under the Computer Crime Act, through the Ministry of Digital Economy and Society and the courts. Once requests are approved, internet service providers are ordered to block access to infringing sites. Blocking orders can be effective in disrupting large-scale piracy operations, but they also face limitations—pirate sites frequently reappear under new domains. Strategic Protection Whether the infringing material is physical counterfeit goods or intangible streaming content,
Read More
September 4, 2025
On June 6, 2025, the Superior People’s Court in Hanoi overturned a non-use cancellation decision by the Intellectual Property Office of Vietnam, a rare and impactful occurrence. In a ruling that may help clarify the enforcement of Vietnam’s IP Law, the court held that valid trademark use can be established through commercial arrangements where the brand owner maintains actual control over the use of the mark, and is not confined to relationships governed by a so-called “formal license agreement. Background: Cross-Border Use, Local Challenge A Singapore company owns a well-known brand of consumer products that has gained recognition across Southeast Asia. In recent years, the brand has been targeted by several unauthorized trademark filings in Vietnam. In one such instance, a local Vietnamese trading company—previously linked to the production and export of counterfeit goods to neighboring countries—filed a non-use cancellation against the Singapore company’s mark and sought to register it under its own name. If the cancellation had been upheld, it would have enabled a complete hijacking of the brand. The IP holder operates in Vietnam through a structured cross-border supply chain. Under an agreement between two related foreign entities, one of which managed regional operations, production orders were placed through a designated Vietnamese company. While the Vietnamese manufacturer was not a party to the agreement, its role in using the mark was recognized and governed by internal and commercial documentation. The Vietnamese manufacturer lawfully obtained the necessary permits, regulatory approvals, and customs clearances for producing the goods in Vietnam. These activities were supported by banking records and internal communications, evidencing active, continuous use of the mark in Vietnam. However, the IP Office concluded that this use did not meet the statutory criteria because the Vietnamese manufacturer did not have a direct license agreement with the brand owner, as
Read More
August 25, 2025
Indonesia’s current regulations on franchises, as stipulated under Government Regulation No. 35/2024 on Franchising and its implementing regulation, Ministry of Trade (MOT) Regulation No. 71/2019 regarding Implementation of Franchising, highlight fundamental changes in franchise registration. These changes have introduced additional complexities and challenges in the franchise registration procedure, making it more difficult for franchise owners to navigate the process. New procedure Franchise applications are still submitted through the Online Single Submission (OSS) portal of the Capital Investment Coordinating Board (BKPM). However, the new procedure requires each applicant, including foreign franchisors, to have an OSS account and a business registration number (NIB) issued by BKPM. An application for franchise registration must be submitted under the applicant’s own account—submissions can no longer be made through the account of a consultant. Once a franchise application is submitted, the authority will distribute the submission to the MOT—the authorized ministry for franchise registration. Any notification or decision upon the registration made by the MOT will be available in the OSS system. Applicants should regularly monitor the status of the franchise application because no notifications will be sent to applicants to alert them of any deficiency. Here is the summary of the new procedure for franchisors: Notable Requirements The disclosure document, or prospectus, is the key focus for the MOT in examining a franchise registration for a franchisor. This document is subject to thorough scrutiny by the MOT to ensure that all mandatory information meets the requirements set in the franchise regulations. The current regulations specifically require that the mandatory clause “business system” in the prospectus cover operational standards and procedures, which should include human resource management, administration, operational management, standard operating methods, business location selection, business premises design, employee requirements, and marketing strategies. Other clauses that are equally important to pay attention to are:
Read More
August 21, 2025
Although the “passing off” principle has sometimes faced criticism for potentially broadening trademark protection—particularly in cases involving unregistered or unconventional marks like shapes, scents, or sounds—it serves an essential purpose. It safeguards the rights of business owners and shields consumers from deception, ensuring fair competition and reflecting the realities of modern commerce. What is passing off, and why is registrability not required? The passing-off principle is a legal concept rooted in English law, aimed at preventing a person from falsely representing or using a mark similar to another’s in a way that causes consumers to mistakenly believe the goods or services come from the same source. Under Thai law, the passing-off principle is provided under Section 46 of the Thai Trademark Act, which states: No person shall be entitled to bring legal proceedings to prevent or to recover damages for the infringement of an unregistered trademark. The provisions of this Section shall not affect the right of the owner of an unregistered trademark to bring legal proceedings against any person for passing off goods as those of the owner of the trademark. The passing-off principle can be interpreted as a practical legal concept. It does not require proof that the mark is registrable or meets the registrability criteria under trademark law. It is sufficient to show that the mark has established goodwill and that the other party’s use of a similar mark is likely to confuse consumers, making it a straightforward and effective tool for protecting brand assets. Requiring a claimant to prove that an unregistered mark could have been registered would undermine the very function of passing off. The doctrine was conceived precisely to fill the gaps left by the registration system. Imposing registrability criteria would nullify its function and leave many commercially valuable identifiers unprotected. If the
Read More