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​ 

August 13, 2026
Modern agricultural machinery is no longer purely mechanical but instead technology dependent. Modern tractors, harvesters, and other farm equipment increasingly incorporate embedded software, electronic control units, sensors, and digital diagnostic systems. While such technologies enhance efficiency, productivity, and precision farming, they also affect the manner of equipment repair and maintenance. As a result, farmers and independent repair providers may have little practical choice but to rely on authorized dealers, even for routine maintenance and repairs. Section 36 of Thailand’s Patent Act reflects the principle that the authorized sale of a patented invention usually exhausts the exclusive right of the patent owner over the specific product. This means that upon legal sale of the patented product, it can typically be used or resold without further authorization from the patent holder. This principle is relatively straightforward when applied to traditional mechanical equipment. Ownership of a machine ordinarily carries with it the practical ability to diagnose faults, replace worn parts, and restore the equipment to working order. Modern agricultural machinery, however, increasingly depends on embedded software, proprietary diagnostic systems, firmware updates, and other digital resources that may remain under the control of the manufacturer or patent holder. This tension lies within the “right to repair” debate. In the United States, on July 8, 2026, the Federal Trade Commission and five states announced a settlement with Deere & Company resolving allegations that Deere had unlawfully restricted farmers’ and independent repair providers’ ability to repair their equipment. Under the terms of the settlement, for the next ten years, Deere must provide repair resources, including software capabilities, on terms equivalent to those provided to authorized dealers. The Deere settlement highlights that the nature of ownership is changing, but legal concepts have not kept pace. Traditional patent-law concepts, including patent exhaustion, were developed with physical products
Read More
August 10, 2026
Thailand has finalized its social media KYC (“know your customer”) rules under Notification of the Electronic Transactions Commission on Measures to Prevent Technological Crimes for Social Media Service Providers (No. 2), which was published in the Government Gazette on May 5, 2026, and will take effect on November 1, 2026. While an early draft of the notification proposed requiring social media platforms to arrange identification of every user account, the final notification is significantly more targeted, focusing on paid online advertising and advertiser identity verification. Though the regulatory initiative primarily aims to combat online fraud and technology-related crimes, it also has important consequences for intellectual property enforcement, because the verified platform records that will be generated under the new requirements can help IP rights holders to identify anonymous online infringers. Key Regulatory Mandates The notification requires social media service providers to verify the identity of advertisers before their paid advertisements are published and disseminated in Thailand through social media, regardless of whether the advertising fees come from the advertisers or third parties. Verification of an advertiser is valid for one year, after which verification would have to be performed again before the platform could publish additional paid advertisements from the advertiser. Permitted verification methods are specified under the notification. A platform may verify an advertiser by checking identity evidence and confirming the connection between the advertiser and that identity evidence, with the notification giving facial comparison against certain government-issued identity documents as an example. Alternatively, platforms may verify advertisers through a digital identity verification and authentication system with an identity-proofing assurance level not lower than the level prescribed by Thailand’s Electronic Transactions Commission. The notification further requires platforms to retain only the advertiser’s information necessary to identify the advertiser, beginning from the start of the advertising activity and for
Read More
August 6, 2026
Introduction: A Trademark Paradox in Sustainable Packaging Walk into any Thai supermarket, and the label-free water bottle is no longer a novelty. Thailand’s packaging market, valued at approximately USD 15.68 billion in 2025, is shifting toward minimalist, plastic-light designs as ESG pressures reshape how brands present their products. The country generated roughly 5.68 million tons of plastic waste in 2021, with a recycling rate of only 19 percent, and regulators are now considering rules that would allow label-free bottled water relying on embossing, laser printing, or QR codes instead of wrap-around labels. As packaging itself becomes the brand identifier, a paradox emerges: designs built to say the least often struggle hardest for protection under Thai intellectual property law. The Trademark Barrier: When Shape Is Not Enough Section 7, paragraph 2(10) of the Thai Trademark Act deems a shape distinctive only if it is not the natural form of the goods, is not necessary to achieve a technical result, and does not add value to the goods. The Department of Intellectual Property’s 2022 examination guidelines apply this test conservatively, as the following examples illustrate. A plain water bottle relying on subtle contours to signal its brand is typically read as just another bottle, not a source identifier. Acquired distinctiveness offers a theoretical escape route, but it demands extensive evidence of sales, advertising, and consumer recognition—an especially heavy burden for new entrants whose minimalist packaging has not yet achieved market prominence. The result is a structural bias against precisely the design innovation that sustainability goals are meant to encourage. Design Patents: A Partial, Imperfect Substitute Design patent protection, covering a product’s shape, configuration, or ornamentation, appears to offer an alternative route. In practice, it is constrained by the same forces driving the minimalist trend. Because many brands converge on similar solutions—clear
Read More
August 4, 2026
Intellectual property (IP) protection sometimes hinges on fame and recognition. However, this alone will not always be sufficient to overcome an IP dispute when it involves contractual obligations or registered rights. Below are five cases from around the world that tackle some of the basic issues in IP registration, ownership, commercialization, and enforcement. 1. USA: Taylor Swift Trademark Application Refused Taylor Swift recently filed a trademark application to register “The Life of a Showgirl,” which is the title of her 12th studio album. When examining a trademark application, the examiner considers various factors before deciding whether it should be registered. One of these factors is whether there is a likelihood of confusion (i.e., would a regular consumer mistake the origin of the trademark). In Taylor Swift’s case, the US Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO) decided that that there would be a risk of confusion. This decision was based on the existing registered trademark, “Confessions of a Showgirl,” owned by Maren Wade, which was registered in 2015. The USPTO refused Taylor Swift’s application based on the shared key distinctive element “of a showgirl,” the lack of sufficient distinguishing terms, the marks being used in overlapping markets (entertainment and performances), and because consumers may assume a common commercial source. Maren Wade then filed a lawsuit in California against Taylor Swift and her affiliated companies, arguing that Taylor Swfit’s branding is confusingly similar in structure, wording, and overall commercial impression to her registered mark. She is also drawing on the USPTO’s refusal of Taylor Swift’s application to support her argument of a likelihood of confusion. A judgment has not yet been reached in this case, but it serves as an important reminder of the importance of satisfying the essential elements required for IP registration. 2. Australia: Katy Perry v. Katie Perry In
Read More