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​ 

October 30, 2023
A Resounding Victory The last days of October brought some excitement for one of the leading pharmaceutical companies in the world, Novartis, when its patent litigation case in Vietnam against a local generic manufacturer, which had stretched over more than eight years, finally came to an end. The background of this case is quite simple. Novartis was the owner of a patent protecting the active ingredient vildagliptin, which was commercialized through its Galvus® product, a medicine used to treat type 2 diabetes. In 2015, the company found that a drug manufacturer in Vietnam’s Binh Duong province on the outskirts of Ho Chi Minh City was producing a medicinal product containing the vildagliptin active ingredient—an infringement of its patent. Novartis first submitted a request to the Ministry of Science and Technology (MOST) to apply administrative sanctions on this infringer. Subsequently, the MOST Inspectorate concluded in July 2015 that the defendant had committed patent infringement and ordered them to stop producing the infringing drugs and recall them from the market. However, the defendant did not comply with the conclusion, and sought an appeal while it continued to produce the infringing medicine. Realizing that administrative sanctions were not strict enough to deter the defendant, Novartis continued to protect its legitimate rights and interests by initiating a lawsuit at the provincial court where the defendant was headquartered, Binh Duong. Novartis claimed that the defendant had infringed the patent and requesting the defendant to compensate for damages at the highest level allowed by law, pay attorney fees, and publicly apologize to Novartis in specialized newspapers. This began a long journey full of challenges that finally ended with the second appellate judgment declared by the High People’s Court of Ho Chi Minh City on October 17, 2023. The court accepted all claims raised by the
Read More
October 30, 2023
In its ongoing efforts to enhance Indonesia’s intellectual property e-filing system, the country’s Directorate General of Intellectual Property (DGIP) has consistently introduced improvements to the online system. In recent months, the DGIP has implemented several noteworthy changes that differ from previous versions of the system. These changes bear significant importance for applicants who intend to file IP applications, and include the changes highlighted below for designs, patents, and trademarks. Designs File format and view limitation. Under current rules, all design drawings must be submitted in JPG format, and only one view is permitted per page. No refund requests. Once the application payment has been made, refund requests are no longer an option. Figure limitation. Only one figure is allowed for each design view, with an exception made for reference and perspective views. Patents Title consistency. If an invention is already registered outside Indonesia through the Patent Cooperation Treaty (PCT), the title in the Indonesian registration application must match the title registered with the World Intellectual Property Organization (WIPO). Bibliographic data matching. In national phase applications, it is essential for all bibliographic data to mirror the information from the PCT international phase as listed on WIPO’s website. This conformity is crucial for a seamless application process. Excess claim fees. A new requirement stipulates that excess claim fees must be paid at the time of filing the patent application. Trademarks Goods and services selection. The DGIP requires applicants to choose their desired goods and services from a predefined list, and the provided list is not editable. The DGIP periodically updates this list, but there is no fixed schedule for these updates. Moreover, these updates can sometimes entail removal of items from the list, and requesting the addition of goods or services is often challenging, especially if a similar alternative already exists
Read More
October 25, 2023
Indonesia and South Korea have opened a patent prosecution highway (PPH) mechanism that allows applicants to seek patent protection in Indonesia by basing their application on a granted Korean patent. The PPH was opened following the conclusion of two memoranda of understanding (MOUs) between Indonesia’s Directorate General of Intellectual Property (DGIP) and the Korean Intellectual Property Office (KIPO) on September 8, 2023. One of the MOUs is about comprehensive cooperation in the field of intellectual property, while the other spells out the details of the PPH mechanism. When requested, the PPH will help applicants speed up the examination process for their patent applications in Indonesia using the substantive examination results issued by the KIPO. This can substantially shorten the amount of time required for the examination process period from approximately two years (from the substantive examination request) to less than one year (from the PPH request). Similar to a PPH request under Indonesia’s existing PPH agreement for Japanese patents, applicants can file a PPH request based on a granted Korean patent after the Indonesian patent application is published and before the issuance of the first office action. Requests must be accompanied by the official fee of IDR 5 million (approx. USD 315) for filing a PPH request. The scope of cooperation between the DGIP and KIPO, as described by the other MOU, includes increasing the countries’ capacity, framework, protection, inspection, and utilization of intellectual property, as well as other cooperative activities. The countries will also exchange information on how to increase public awareness about the importance of protecting intellectual property. For more information on this new bilateral cooperation, or on any aspect of patent protection in Indonesia, please contact Tilleke & Gibbins at [email protected] or +6221 2971 8088.
Read More
October 20, 2023
On October 18, 2023, Myanmar’s State Administration Council (SAC) issued notifications announcing the enforcement date of the Industrial Design Law and Copyright Law, which were both enacted in 2019. Notifications No. 217/2023 and No. 218/2023 set October 31, 2023, as the effective date for the Industrial Design Law and the Copyright Law, respectively. These notifications mark the beginning of the substantive protection framework for industrial designs and copyrights in the country. Myanmar’s Ministry of Commerce had already issued the Industrial Design Rules on September 29, 2023, laying out procedures and guidelines for registration of industrial designs under the Industrial Design Law. The next step will be the announcement of forms and official fees for conducting industrial design-related matters at Myanmar’s Intellectual Property Department (IPD)—a step that is imminent now that the effective date of the law has been announced. Rights owners should therefore begin assessing their portfolios and preparing the requirements for applying for registration to secure statutory rights for their industrial designs in Myanmar. The protection of copyrights arises automatically without a mandatory registration process. However, when the new Copyright Law takes effect, replacing the old Copyright Act of 1914, rights owners will be able to voluntarily record their copyrights under the framework established by the new law. These recordals can provide stronger evidence of ownership in the event of a dispute over the copyright work. For more information on these developments, or to check on the latest updates to Myanmar’s legal framework for protecting intellectual property, please contact Tilleke & Gibbins at [email protected].
Read More