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

October 18, 2015

Licensing Facilitation Act to Enhance Trademark Registration Procedures

Subscribe to Updates
World Trademark Review

In an effort to reduce excessive bureaucratic procedures for obtaining registrations or licenses, Thailand has recently enacted a new law called the Licensing Facilitation Act BE 2558 (2015), which came into effect on July 21, 2015. The act requires government authorities to prepare a “public manual.”

In Thailand, red tape is one of the main obstacles to doing business. Thai laws usually give the authorities broad discretion in granting licenses, which ends up affecting business, because the costs, time, and outcome are unpredictable. Therefore, the Act aims to solve these issues by requiring the authorities to publish public manuals disclosing the rules, procedures, requirements, costs, and periods of time for granting the relevant licenses.

As required under the Act, the Department of Intellectual Property has published 33 public manuals issued by five offices, including the Trademark Office. The public manuals mainly specify information based on the laws, but they also specifically list all of the steps, estimated timelines, and workflow, which the laws do not provide. This article will focus on the timelines of six procedures, as discussed below.

1. Trademark registration. The registrar must check the application for registration and relevant documents within one day of the submission, and then examine the registrability of the mark within 11 months. If the registrar accepts the registration, publication of the mark must be arranged within one month and the mark will be published in the Trademark Journal  for three months. Once the three-month period has ended, if there is no opposition, the registrar shall order the mark’s registration and notify the applicant that it must pay the required fees within 15 days. If the fees are paid, the registrar shall issue a registration certificate within 15 days. The total period of time for all of these procedures is 16 months.

2. Amendment of trademark registration information. If the owner of a pending or registered trademark requests the amendment of certain information in the trademark registration, the registrar must check the relevant documents within one day and consider the application within 60 days from the date of filing of the application. If the registrar approves the amendment, the information will be changed within seven days. Therefore, the total period of time from the submission of the application to the amendment of the information is 68 days.

3. Assignment or inheritance of trademark rights. The assignment or inheritance of trademark rights must be registered with the registrar in accordance with ministerial regulations. Registration of the assignment or inheritance of trademark rights takes 68 days in total, which includes one day for checking the relevant documents, 60 days for consideration, and seven days for issuing a certificate of assignment or inheritance of trademark rights.

4. Trademark license registration. It is compulsory to register a license agreement with the Trademark Office pursuant to the Thai Trademark Act. The public manual specifies that the documents must be checked within one day. The registrar has 90 days from the date of receipt to consider the application. If the registrar approves the registration of the license agreement, the registrar has seven days to notify the applicant that it must pay fees within 30 days, and seven days to issue a certificate of trademark license agreement after receiving the fees. The total period for a granting trademark license registration is 105 days.

5. Renewal of trademark registration. Similarly to other procedures, the registrar must check the documents within one day and consider the application within 60 days. If the application is in accordance with the rules, the registrar shall renew the trademark registration within seven days. The total period of this process is 68 days.

6. Cancellation of trademark registration by the owner. The trademark owner may request the cancellation of its trademark registration. This procedure takes 31 days in total, namely one day for checking the documents and 30 days for considering the request.

Below is a summary of the length of time required for each trademark registration procedure:

Procedure

Total period of time
Trademark registration 16 months
Amendment of trademark registration information 68 days
Assignment or inheritance of trademark rights 68 days
Trademark licence registration 105 days
Renewal of trademark registration 68 days
Cancellation of trademark by the owner 31 days

In light of the above, it can be concluded that the Act will make the registration of trademarks faster than the current procedure, which takes at least 24 months. However, this will depend on how the authorities implement these public manuals in practice. Further, the authorities may be subject to disciplinary penalties for violating the act and, therefore, can be expected to work more efficiently.

Thailand will become a signatory to the Madrid Protocol by the end of 2015 and may implement either a 12-month rule or an 18-month rule for examining international trademark registrations. Pursuant to the Act, there is an obligation to complete a trademark examination within 11 months and trademark registrations must be finished within 16 months, according to the public manual. This means that trademarks can be registered through the Thai Trademark Office as an alternative to using the Madrid System.

Download Full Article
Related Professionals

Practices

Intellectual Property

Location

RELATED INSIGHTS​ 

September 14, 2026
Myanmar’s first-to-file trademark registration regime under the Trademark Law 2019—which became fully operational in April 2023—provides mark owners with enhanced legal protection compared with the country’s former system. Correspondingly, the current system imposes more rigorous statutory requirements for obtaining, maintaining, and enforcing rights in marks. In this first-to-file trademark registration system, however, evidence of use remains particularly significant, as it may establish acquired distinctiveness, support a claim that a mark is well-known, and strengthen the owner’s position in both registration and enforcement proceedings. Accordingly, it can be said that this framework is underpinned by three key concepts: distinctiveness, well-known status, and, importantly, use of the trademark. Trademark Distinctiveness Under the Trademark Law, signs that lack distinctiveness are generally ineligible for mark protection. These signs include generic terms, basic shapes, unstylized single letters or numerals, and signs that merely describe the kind, quality, quantity, intended purpose, value, geographical origin, production time, or other characteristics of the relevant goods or services. However, a mark that would otherwise be refused on distinctiveness or descriptiveness grounds may be registrable if it has acquired distinctiveness through its use prior to the filing date. To show this, the applicant must demonstrate that the mark became distinctive to relevant consumers through continuous, exclusive, and good-faith use in trade within Myanmar. The burden of proving acquired distinctiveness rests with the mark owner. Accordingly, sufficient evidence demonstrating both use of the mark and the level of consumer recognition attained should be prepared in advance. Well-Known Mark Criteria Myanmar’s Trademark Rules, which govern the substantive examination of mark registration applications, establish criteria for determining well-known marks, aligned with international standards. Where an applicant claims well-known status—whether to overcome a refusal on relative grounds or to oppose a third party’s registration—the registrar will assess the claim based on the following
Read More
September 14, 2026
On August 23, 2026, Vietnam’s National Assembly passed Law No. 11/2026/QH16, amending the country’s Customs Law with effect from March 1, 2027. The amendments represent a substantial reform of Vietnam’s customs-based intellectual property enforcement regime. The reforms come amid considerable external pressure. In its 2026 Special 301 review, the US Trade Representative (USTR) designated Vietnam a “priority foreign country,” citing widespread counterfeiting, weak border enforcement, limited ex officio customs powers, and the absence of controls over goods in transit. Vietnam’s legislative response signals a commitment to bringing its border enforcement practices into line with international expectations. For IP rights holders operating in or through Vietnam, the amended law introduces several tools that substantially strengthen enforcement options at the border. Closing the Transit Gap One of the most consequential amendments is the extension of IP-related customs enforcement to goods in transit. Previously, Vietnam’s customs regime applied IP controls only to goods being imported or exported, a gap the USTR had specifically identified as enabling infringing goods to pass through Vietnamese ports with impunity. Vietnam’s geographic position as a logistics hub for Southeast Asia means that substantial volumes of goods transit its ports and free-trade zones. Extending enforcement to cover these shipments brings Vietnam closer to the standard set by the EU’s customs enforcement regulation and addresses a longstanding concern of multinational brand owners whose goods are frequently counterfeited in the region. Strengthened Suspension and Ex Officio Powers The amended law introduces a dual-track suspension mechanism (Article 73(2)). Customs authorities will suspend clearance upon request by an IP rights holder (or authorized representative) who provides evidence of IP ownership, evidence of infringement, and a financial guarantee. Customs can now proactively suspend clearance on an ex officio basis if, during inspection and monitoring, they discover “clear grounds” to suspect that imported, exported,
Read More
September 7, 2026
Indonesia’s Constitutional Court (Mahkamah Konstitusi) has reinstated a key provision limiting pharmaceutical patent protection, signaling a renewed commitment to balancing patent rights with public access to medicines. In its ruling to Case No. 255/PUU-XXIII/2025, the court partially granted a petition for judicial review of Law No. 65 of 2024, which had amended the country’s Patent Law, and ordered the restoration of a provision that had excluded certain pharmaceutical inventions from patentability. The decision took effect immediately upon its pronouncement at the court’s plenary session on August 28, 2026. Background The petition challenged the removal of article 4(f) from Law No. 13 of 2016 concerning Patents (Patent Law), as amended by Law No. 65 of 2024. Article 4(f) had excluded from patentability certain inventions relating to new uses of known substances. The petitioners argued that removing this provision would open the door to patent protection for second medical use inventions and facilitate patent evergreening—practices that can extend exclusivity periods, delay generic market entry, and reduce public access to affordable medicines. The petitioners included several patient advocacy and public-interest organizations: the Indonesian Dialysis Patients Community Association, the Indonesian Association of Drug Abuse Victims (PKNI), the Indonesian Pulmonary Hypertension Foundation (YHPI), the Rekat Peduli Indonesia Foundation, and the Indonesian Positive Women’s Association (IPPI), along with the Indonesia for Global Justice Association and four individual petitioners. The petitioners also challenged the constitutionality of the phrase “interested party” in article 70(1) of the Patent Law, arguing that it should be construed expressly to clarify who has standing to appeal a decision to grant a patent before the Board of Patent Appeal, and to allow a broader range of parties—such as patent holders, licensees, consumer organizations, prosecutors, aggrieved third parties, and others who may suffer direct or indirect harm from the grant of a patent—to
Read More
September 2, 2026
Thailand and China have a longstanding and significant trade relationship, which increasingly extends to e-commerce and digitally enabled supply chains. While these channels create new opportunities for businesses to reach consumers across borders, their growth also brings greater exposure to intellectual property (IP) infringement across jurisdictions and online platforms. Effective cooperation between the two countries’ enforcement authorities has therefore become increasingly important. To strengthen cooperation in this area, Thailand and China signed a memorandum of understanding (MOU) on IP enforcement in Beijing on July 20, 2026, during the Thai prime minister’s official visit to China. Officially titled “Memorandum of Understanding Between the State Administration for Market Regulation of the People’s Republic of China and the Ministry of Commerce of the Kingdom of Thailand on Cooperation in the Field of Intellectual Property Enforcement,” the MOU forms part of a broader bilateral agenda covering industrial and supply chains, participation by micro, small, and medium-sized enterprises (MSMEs), cooperation associated with the ASEAN–China Free Trade Area 3.0, and progress on the registration of Thai geographical indications in China. The MOU establishes a bilateral framework for cooperation and coordination in five broad areas: Strengthening dialogue in IP enforcement; Enhancing information sharing; Facilitating the enforcement of IP rights in cases arising in the parties’ domestic markets and on online platforms, in accordance with their respective domestic laws; Promoting cooperation in IP enforcement training and human resource development; and Undertaking other cooperation activities agreed upon by both sides. The Department of Intellectual Property (DIP) will serve as the principal coordinating agency for Thailand, while the Bureau of Law Enforcement and Inspection in China’s State Administration for Market Regulation (SAMR) will serve in that role for China. The framework is particularly relevant to the growth of e-commerce, as it covers infringement in the domestic markets and on
Read More