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​ 

November 14, 2022
Every country has its own customs measures in place to monitor goods crossing its borders. These measures are implemented by customs departments and other government agencies that facilitate international trade by checking shipments and collecting taxes on goods that enter and leave the country. Laos is one of the many countries that have sought to create a favorable environment for operators to export, transit, move, and store goods. In addition to tax collection duties, the Lao Customs Department also has measures to safeguard IP rights and prevent unfair competition, including protections against the infringement of trademarks and copyright—measures that have been in place since 2011. This year, Laos further improved its framework for enforcing IP rights through border measures against infringing goods. In February 2022, the government published new customs instructions that added industrial designs to the list of safeguarded IP rights for the Lao Customs Department. This means that an IP owner can now request the Lao Customs Department to take action on products infringing a protected industrial design under the customs border measures. Procedures The Lao Customs Department enables IP rights holders to protect their IP by allowing them to request the suspension of clearance for any goods imported, exported, or transiting in Laos on the grounds that a trademark, copyright, or industrial design is being or is likely to be infringed. To be eligible for this protection, IP rights holders must submit a request for a Declaration of Ownership to the Customs Department. Once approved, the application is forwarded to the provincial and capital customs offices to serve as a reference for officers inspecting goods crossing the Lao border. The Declaration of Ownership should be accompanied by the relevant written form for inspection and supervision of goods that are the subject of IP rights. Various other
Read More
November 14, 2022
In copyright disputes in many countries around the world, experts who can provide professional opinions based on their deep expertise in specific fields play a very important role. It is the same in Vietnam when copyright disputes are brought to court. The judges and court staff may have almost no knowledge in specific areas of settlement such as fine arts, music, or computer programs. For this reason, they focus only on the legal aspect of the cases; however, the legal aspect can only be considered on the basis of analysis from experts, commonly known in Vietnam as “assessment” (or expert opinion). Assessment Has Become Essential For copyright disputes that are resolved in court, except in cases where the behavior is very clear, a court order only occurs when there are assessment conclusions. The legal basis for considering assessment conclusions as an important source of evidence can be found in the 2005 Law on Intellectual Property, as amended in June 2022, and its subordinate legal documents. However, the particular importance of assessment is not shown in legislation but rather in practice, through the fact that the courts and procuracies attach great importance to these assessment conclusions and treat them as necessary—sometimes even compulsory—documents from which they make their judgments and rulings. It is rare for a court to express any opinion on the contents of an assessment conclusion, and rarer still for a court to make a judgment or ruling that is contrary to the conclusion. Thus, it seems that assessment conclusions, though originally intended as reference points only, are becoming decisive documents in many cases. In other words, the party that wins the assessment conclusion is much more likely to win the case. An Obstacle to Be Resolved For better or worse, assessment has become very important in the
Read More
October 21, 2022
On June 16, 2022, Vietnam’s National Assembly ratified the latest amendment of the country’s Intellectual Property Law, which will take effect on January 1, 2023 (except for the provisions on sound marks, which took retroactive effect on January 14, 2022, and the provisions on test data protection for agrochemicals, which will come into force on January 14, 2024). For the amended IP Law to be enforced consistently and efficiently, the government is actively working to issue a decree guiding the implementation of the amended IP Law (the “new decree”). The new decree, after being ratified, will also take effect on January 1, 2023, replacing Decree No. 103/2006/ND-CP and Decree No. 105/2006/ND-CP, two decrees issued in 2006 to guide the previous IP Law of 2005. Due to the urgency of promulgating a legislative document conforming with the amended IP Law when it takes effect, the government will formulate and promulgate the new decree under a simplified procedure. The drafting agency circulated the first draft of the new decree to seek opinions from concerned parties on October 10, 2022. The new decree is seen as comprehensive guidance to key aspects of the IP Law, including the establishment and enforcement of industrial property rights, IP representation, measures to promote IP activities, IP-related export and import control; IP assessment, and state management of intellectual property. The new decree generally consolidates provisions of the two previous decrees without many changes. The highlight of the new decree is some new provisions on controlling security for patents and secret patents (Article 14); Hague applications for industrial designs (Articles 22, 23, 24) and cancellation/invalidation of Hague registrations for industrial designs (Article 32.5); and compensation for patent owners (Article 43). The new decree is currently being reviewed by the drafting agency before submission for appraisal and validation, and
Read More
October 19, 2022
Tilleke & Gibbins’ intellectual property team in Bangkok has provided the latest updates to the Thailand chapter of Practical Law’s Intellectual Property Transactions Global Guide, a high-level comparative overview of intellectual property (IP) laws and regulations in 36 jurisdictions worldwide. The Intellectual Property Transactions in Thailand chapter focuses on business-related aspects of IP, such as the value of intellectual assets in M&A transactions and the licensing of IP portfolios. The topics covered include the following: IP assignment and licensing: Basis/scope and formalities, trade secrets and confidentiality, main terms for assignment/licensing Research and development collaborations: Improvements and derivatives, joint ownership Conducting IP audits to determine the contents of an IP portfolio IP aspects of mergers and acquisitions: IP due diligence, warranties and indemnities, transfer of IP rights Lending and security interests over IP rights Settlement agreements in IP litigation Agreements regarding rights over IP created by employees and consultants Competition law and exploitation of IP rights Tax (e.g., for IP licensing) and nontariff trade barriers To read the full Intellectual Property Transactions in Thailand chapter, please visit the Practical Law website.
Read More