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 9, 2024
The popularity of the franchise business model has been growing rapidly in Southeast Asia in recent years, with some of the world’s top brands becoming common sights in the commercial districts and shopping malls of major regional cities in Cambodia, Indonesia, Laos, Myanmar, Thailand, and Vietnam. While for most countries in this part of the world, franchising has not been explicitly mentioned in legislation, well prepared franchise business operations can comfortably adapt to each country’s regulatory framework, and the growth is poised to continue even as the global retail sector redesigns and redoubles its efforts in the wake of the COVID-19 outbreak. In fact, the franchise business model, which is both global and hyper-local at once, is one of the most promising solutions that entrepreneurs are turning to in their quest to overcome the challenges of the new economic reality. The Regional Guide to Franchising Law in Southeast Asia provides key, up-to-date insights into the legal frameworks regulating franchise operations in these Southeast Asian countries, and helps brand owners understand the most relevant laws, authorities, and procedures for their business. Some of the essential topics covered for each jurisdiction include considerations in negotiating and designing franchise agreements, protecting intellectual property rights, and important information on judicial and arbitral procedures should a dispute arise between franchisor and franchisee. Practitioners from Tilleke & Gibbins’ offices in Cambodia, Indonesia, Laos, Myanmar, Thailand, and Vietnam contributed to guide—not only by providing legal expertise on the laws and mechanisms applicable in each jurisdiction, but also by examining strategies for establishing and running resilient franchise operations in Southeast Asia. The full guide can be accessed as a PDF through the button below.
Read More
August 30, 2024
As in many other countries, registered trademarks in Indonesia that are not used for a given period of time can be canceled. A recent decision (Decision No. 144/PUU-XXI/2023) from the country’s Constitutional Court has extended the non-use cancellation period from three years to five years, applicable from July 30, 2024. This ruling could have a major impact on trademark holders in the country. Background of the Case Article 74 of Indonesia’s Trademark Law of 2016 specifies that trademarks can be canceled if they go unused in the trade of goods or services for three consecutive years from the date of registration or last use. This provision is aligned with the Paris Convention and the TRIPs Agreement. On October 27, 2023, an Indonesian individual named Ricky Thio asked the Constitutional Court to examine the constitutionality of Article 74, arguing that it opened a pathway for third parties to eliminate trademarks owned by small and medium-sized enterprises (SMEs), and did not provide certainty to his registered trademark in terms of the period of protection. Additionally, he argued that the period of three consecutive years was burdensome for SMEs, and asked the court to void Article 74 and add force majeure circumstances—such as Covid-19—as an exemption to non-use cancellation. Mr. Thio submitted this request while he was defending his trademark registration from a non-use cancellation request filed by Zhejiang Dahua Technology Co., Ltd. In his defense to that cancellation request, Mr. Thio explained that the non-use of the trademark was due to the Covid-19 pandemic. The cancellation case followed a different judicial pathway, and was under appeal before the Supreme Court at the time Mr. Thio filed his request for judicial review with the Constitutional Court. Mr. Thio’s case also attracted the submission of an amicus brief—a relatively new trend in Indonesia—from
Read More
August 30, 2024
In 2023, Vietnam’s Intellectual Property Rights Infringement Prevention Cooperation Program reported that 776 cases of IPR infringement were resolved nationwide. Of these, 546 were addressed through administrative measures, while criminal proceedings were initiated in just five cases. These statistics clearly show that administrative measures overwhelmingly dominate the response to counterfeit goods, with criminal actions being relatively rare. This raises an intriguing question: Why do IPR holders prefer administrative routes over criminal measures in Vietnam? And what challenges and obstacles make criminal enforcement less commonly pursued in these cases? Overlapping legal provisions Under Vietnam’s Penal Code, two key offenses address counterfeit goods: Manufacturing and trading in counterfeit goods under Article 192. Manufacturing and trading in industrial property rights-infringing goods under Article 226. Both provisions regulate counterfeit goods, yet they suffer from a lack of clear definitions and guidelines for application. Article 192 does not explicitly define “counterfeit goods”. Instead, authorities refer to Article 3.7 of Decree No. 98/2020/ND-CP, as amended, which outlines several categories of counterfeit goods, including: (i) utility counterfeits (goods not meeting normal expectations of usage or function), (ii) substandard goods, (iii) counterfeit goods based on misrepresentation, and (iv) counterfeit stamps, labels, and packaging. Meanwhile, Article 226 specifically deals with counterfeit goods that infringe trademark rights. These “trademark-counterfeit goods” are defined under Article 213.2 of the IP Law as goods or packaging bearing trademarks or signs that are identical or confusingly similar to protected trademarks for the same goods, used without the trademark owner’s permission. In this regard, “counterfeit goods” and “trademark-counterfeit goods” are treated as distinct, non-overlapping concepts, each corresponding to a separate offense. However, in practice, there is often a gray area where the two overlap. Many cases involve infringing goods that meet the criteria for both categories, allowing authorities to apply both regulations simultaneously. For
Read More
August 30, 2024
With the emergence of online marketplaces and e-commerce platforms, consumers have transformed their ways of engaging in transactions, gaining unprecedented convenience and access to a vast array of products. These platforms allow small businesses and individual entrepreneurs to reach a wider audience in an increasingly competitive market. Challenges in Tracing Online Infringers The growth of these online marketplaces and e-commerce platforms has also given rise to challenges, particularly in locating the actual identity of online infringers and combating intellectual property infringement activities. Online infringers often take advantage of anonymity to offer counterfeit products for sale on their platforms. Not only do these online infringing activities violate the rights of IP owners, but they also involve the sale of counterfeit products that are often manufactured with inferior quality and may pose significant risks to consumers’ health and safety. In today’s modern world, tracing the actual identity of online infringers proves challenging, as infringers adopt numerous methods to conceal their identity. The most frequently used method is using a fake name and address when dispatching parcels to consumers, making it difficult to verify the seller’s identity and the location of the sender on the parcel package. Some infringers exploit cash-on-delivery logistics services to prevent the disclosure of their identity, such as bank account numbers and bank account owner names, which would typically be required for direct payments. Instead, the shipping company collects the payment on their behalf, allowing the infringers to remain anonymous and making it more difficult to find their actual identity. Thailand’s New Regulations on Cash-on-Delivery Logistics Services Recently, the Committee on Contracts of Thailand’s Consumer Protection Board announced the Notification regarding Stipulation of Cash-on-Delivery Logistics Services as a Controlled-Receipt Business B.E. 2567 (2024) under the Consumer Protection Act B.E. 2522 (1979) in the Thai Royal Gazette dated July
Read More