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 6, 2022
To view this article in Vietnamese, please click here. In accordance with Article 59.2 of the Law on Intellectual Property issued in 2005, as amended and supplemented in 2009 and 2019 (“IP Law”), Vietnamese law currently does not recognize the protection of computer programs as inventions. However, in practice, if the subject-matter of an invention related to a computer program has technical characteristics and the program, when running on a computer, creates a further technical effect going beyond the usual physical interactions between a program and a computer, this subject-matter is likely to be protected as an invention. This condition is not codified, but is reflected in Article 5.8.2.5 of the patent examination guidelines issued in 2010, as amended and supplemented in 2020 – a reference document showing the guidance issued by the Intellectual Property Office of Vietnam (“IP Office”). Currently, at the formality examination stage, these “technical” conditions for inventions related to computer programs are quite easy to meet as it is only necessary to show that the subject-matter is a “Method performed by a computer for a purpose …”, “Processing apparatus…”, or “Computer-readable storage medium storing a program to perform the method…”. In the substantive examination stage, however, the “technical” condition is further scrutinized through the assessment of technical features stated in the subject-matter to determine whether the interaction between the program and the computer creates a further technical effect. The IP Office often issues office actions on substantive examination results because the computer-related patent application does not solve any technical problem and does not produce a further technical effect going beyond the normal interactions between the program and the computer. On December 31, 2021, the IP Office added to the patent examination guidelines mentioned above by issuing an annex with specific guidelines for examining patent applications
Read More
May 3, 2022
In early 2022 Thailand’s Department of Intellectual Property issued its new examination guidelines for trademark registration, replacing the previous guidelines dating from 2011. The new guidelines seek to ensure that the examination of trademark applications and the issuance of notifications by the trademark registrar are efficient, timely, in line with current practice and based on uniform standards. One of the major issues addressed in the new guidelines, which will be of interest to brand owners, is the distinctiveness of trademarks consisting solely of three/four letters or of numerals. Section 7 of Thailand’s Trademark Act states that a trademark containing a stylised letter or numeral as an essential element is distinctive. In the past, the trademark registrar interpreted this stipulation as meaning that marks made up solely of three/four letters or of numerals, which did not form words or could not be pronounced as words, were not registrable if they were not presented in a stylised form. Under the new guidelines, however, the Trademark Act’s wording “a stylised letter or numeral” is interpreted as referring to a letter or numeral (in any language) represented in an unusual manner. Moreover, the new guidelines state that an uncommon sequence of three or more letters or numerals (or a combination thereof) is in fact distinctive and registrable. One notable exception to the new standard is that marks that are descriptive of the nature or characteristics of the goods or services are not considered distinctive. The new guidelines provide several examples of marks that would be unregistrable for this reason, such as B12 for vitamins, XXL for clothing, 34B for bras, or 32GB for memory cards. The new guidelines also clearly state that the phonetic transcription of letters or numerals in Thai characters is not considered distinctive. Nonetheless, brand owners still have the right
Read More
March 31, 2022
Since the onset of the COVID-19 pandemic and the ensuing safety measures, many Thai retailers have shifted their sales toward online platforms. Unsurprisingly, counterfeiters have followed suit. The online sale of counterfeit healthcare and other life sciences products (e.g., food, cosmetics, and medical devices) is an area of significant concern, as it is particularly prevalent, damaging, and complex in relation to Thailand’s laws. This article outlines this type of counterfeiting activity in Thailand and explains some important tools brand owners have for fighting it. Counterfeiting Operations Although illicit operations seek to avoid being identified by authorities and brand owners, investigations by law enforcement and Tilleke & Gibbins on behalf of clients have yielded some insights into how these illegitimate sellers typically operate. Often, consumers are first exposed to these counterfeit life sciences products by paid social media advertisements that link to social media accounts set up by sellers impersonating brand owners. This brand impersonation may include unauthorized use of a trademark or trade name as part of the account name, and unauthorized reproduction of official advertisement artwork or product descriptions, taken directly from the official social media account. From the fake social media account, consumers are usually directed to a merchant website that contains consumer reviews, which are entirely fabricated. While not every counterfeiting operation follows this exact blueprint, employing some variation of these methods lends counterfeiting platforms the ability to proliferate through multiple iterations, as well as believability in the eyes of consumers. How Brand Owners Can Take Action Life sciences brand owners often discover that their products have been targeted by counterfeiters when a counterfeit item injures or negatively impacts a consumer. Thinking that the product is genuine, the consumer may then complain to the brand owner, or worse, file a complaint with the authorities. Many times
Read More
March 25, 2022
Trade dress, which refers to the visual appearance of a product and packaging, as well as the product’s placement at its point-of-sale (store layout), was at the center of an infringement case that recently obtained the highest damages award ever given for a trademark case in Thailand. Trade dress is an important branding consideration because it can create a commercial impression and enable the public to recognize the original source of goods and services, distinct from other traders. Trade dress comes in many different forms, but only a few of them find solid protection in Thailand, and only through creative use of existing intellectual property protections. For instance, a unique packaging design in the form of an unfolded paper box could be eligible for trademark registration. A distinctive product configuration or external design of a container might be eligible for registration as a three-dimensional trademark, or even as a design patent if it features lines or colors giving a special appearance to a novel product that has an industrial application. In addition, a product’s configuration could be subject to copyright protection as a “sculpture work” if it shows a figure with tangible volume. However, in Thailand, trade dress does not yet receive explicit recognition under the country’s Trademark Law—unlike in some other jurisdictions whose trademark laws permit the registration of trade dress. The protection and enforcement of trade dress in the form of “store layout” in particular has been a constant challenge in Thailand, given the lack of explicit laws and precedence. Consequently, brand owners may have a hard time protecting their trade dress in relation to their creative and unique store layout designs, despite a great deal of effort and financial investment. But now this appears to be changing: In December 2021, Tilleke & Gibbins successfully secured a
Read More