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​ 

May 30, 2022
The Indonesian government has launched a number of strategic initiatives aimed at getting the country removed from the Priority Watch List in the US Trade Representative’s annual Special 301 Report on Intellectual Property Protection. In trying to leave behind this ignominious status—which has been stubbornly persistent for over 30 years—Indonesia’s Directorate General of Intellectual Property (DGIP) is leading an IP Operations Task Force consisting of five ministries and agencies, including the National Agency of Drug and Food Control (BPOM), Customs, the State Police, and the Ministry of Communications and Information (MOCI). According to statistics from the task force, 554 infringement cases were handled by the police and the IP Office in 2019–2021, with trademark infringement and copyright infringement being most prevalent. Year on year, the number of trademark infringement cases increased from 90 in 2020 to 137 in 2021, while copyright infringement cases over the same period decreased slightly, from 42 to 38. While the cases occurring in physical markets remain high, the battleground has now expanded to online platforms and social media. Indonesia has embraced digital technology with enthusiasm, and the country’s citizens are among the world’s most avid users of e-commerce, social media, and other mobile apps. Research from Google, Temasek, and Bain & Company indicates sizable growth in Indonesia’s digital economy, from USD 47 billion in 2020 to USD 70 billion in 2021—a digital marketplace that now includes more than 158 million e-commerce customers. Separately, the MOCI reported suspension of 1,745 websites and other infringing online content from 2017 to 2019. Meanwhile, the DGIP banned hundreds of problematic e-commerce portals related to trademark infringement during 2019. There is no official report on recent online infringement cases; however, the numbers are predicted to rise in tandem with the increasing use of online platforms. Aside from these enforcement
Read More
May 30, 2022
TV game shows play an important role in the Vietnamese entertainment industry, as in the global market. Many well-known game shows from other countries have been franchised or licensed for broadcast in Vietnam, including Who Wants to Be a Millionaire?, Vietnam’s Got Talent, and The Voice, drawing large audiences and generating billions of VND from commercialized activities. Other popular shows have been developed domestically—some wholly original, but many bearing a heavy resemblance to existing shows from other markets, with similar gameplay, similar sets, and even similar names. This raises an interesting question from the intellectual property perspective as to whether owners or creators of game shows can charge these copycat shows with infringement. In other words, are format rights recognized as a copyright and can a game show be protected under intellectual property law? Globally, this is a question without a clear and explicit answer. The Format Recognition and Protection Association (FRAPA), a trade association formed in 2000 to advocate recognition of television formats as intellectual property, strongly believes that format rights are protectable and has been working to convince courts and lawmakers around the world to define these rights under law. However, recognition of format rights is still very limited, and is often determined on a case-by-case basis. A common argument from legal experts is that because the format of a game show is only composed of ideas, which are not protected by law, it cannot be the subject of copyright (for reference, Green v Broadcasting Corporation of New Zealand in 1989). However, others argue that if the format of a game show is an intellectual creation and contains key elements which have unique originality, and it is not just a combination of general and commonplace elements, it can be protected under copyright law (for reference, Meakin v
Read More
May 27, 2022
The Thailand Research and Innovation Utilization Promotion Act B.E. 2564 (2021) (TRIUP Act), which is also referred to as the Thai Bayh-Dole Act, came into force on May 7, 2022. The enactment of the TRIUP Act is a culmination of years of deliberation by the Thai government and various stakeholders, and is modeled after the success of the adoption of the Bayh-Dole Act in other jurisdictions, such as the United States, Japan, and Korea. Under existing intellectual property laws in Thailand, patentable inventions are owned by the employer, hirer, or commissioning party by default, unless they explicitly agree to a different arrangement with the inventor. Public research organizations and government agencies in Thailand have always had their own institutional policies addressing the ownership, management, and exploitation of intellectual property rights. While certain government funding agencies may co-own such intellectual property rights with the relevant research institutes, some have adopted a more restrictive approach by retaining full ownership of any intellectual property rights arising from research and development efforts carried out using their funds. Instead of allowing the inventors to have full ownership rights over their inventions, these funding agencies would grant them a license instead. The promulgation of the TRIUP Act changes this. Under this new law, inventions made with the government’s funding belong to their inventors (e.g., universities and research institutes). Overview The TRIUP Act requires fund recipients and researchers (usually represented by their employing institution) who wish to own their research or innovation results to disclose them to the funding government agency or organization within a specified period, and to notify the funding party of their intention of ownership together with a commercialization plan. If a fund recipient or researcher fails to do so, the research or innovation results will belong to the funding party instead. The
Read More
May 12, 2022
The presence of counterfeit goods in the Indonesian market is a stubbornly persistent challenge that has plagued the country for many years. The United States Trade Representative’s Special 301 Report, which is issued each year to assess intellectual property (IP) protection regimes around the world, has listed Indonesia on its “Priority Watch List” 23 times and on the “Watch List” 10 times. The 2021 report included the recommendation that Indonesia develop a specialized IP unit under the Indonesian National Police to focus on investigating domestic criminal syndicates behind counterfeiting and piracy. The police’s Special Crime Unit already handles IP matters and has been operating since long before 2021, but that year Indonesia also established its new IP Enforcement Task Force, which aims to improve intragovernmental coordination on enforcement. However, IP enforcement remains challenging in Indonesia. The police and the Directorate General of Intellectual Property (DGIP) handled 346 total IP enforcement cases from 2020 through early 2022. While it is positive to see some enforcement activity, this is a rather low number, considering that the Indonesian market and its population are very large—and that counterfeiting is a widespread and persistent problem. Shopping for a Solution One way Indonesia’s Trademark Office is trying to address the country’s repeated problems with counterfeiting and piracy is by introducing a certification system for shopping centers and malls based on their support for intellectual property rights and standards. The certificates are intended to guarantee that the establishment hosts sellers of genuine products. Both physical markets—such as Pasar Tanah Abang and Mangga Dua, two known markets for counterfeit goods—and online shopping venues are eligible to obtain a certificate. Specifically, this includes department stores, shopping streets, supermarkets, social media, online marketplaces, and crowdsourcing websites that digitally collects information, ideas, opinions, or work from a group of people.
Read More