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

November 24, 2015

Licensing Facilitation Act: Enhancing Patent and Trademark Registration Procedures

Subscribe to Updates
Informed Counsel

The Licensing Facilitation Act B.E. 2558 (2015) (LFA), implemented on July 21, 2015, requires government authorities that register and/or grant licenses—such as the Department of Intellectual Property (DIP)—to publish public manuals disclosing the rules, procedures, requirements, costs, and periods of time that relate to granting the licenses. The rationale behind the LFA is to expedite registration procedures with government authorities across Thailand.

Under the LFA, the DIP has published 33 public manuals to date, issued by five offices, including public manuals related to patent registration, international applications under the Patent Cooperation Treaty, patent design registration, and trademark registration. The public manuals specify the relevant laws, list all of the required steps, and estimate timelines and workflow, which the laws do not provide.

This article presents an overview of the important changes introduced by the LFA regarding timelines of patents, design patents, petty patents, and trademark registrations procedures.

Patents

The total time to process a patent registration from filing to grant is within 55 months, which includes 12.5 months from the patent application to publication, 38.5 months for substantive examination, and 20 days to grant and issue a patent letter.

One significant change introduced by the LFA relates to the DIP’s patent registration procedure, and specifically, the deadline to submit formal documents. Prior to July 21, 2015, a patent application had to be filed with certain formal documents, including a power of attorney, and if applicable, a deed of assignment and a statement of the applicant’s right to apply for a patent.

If these formal documents were not submitted with the patent application, then a request for a 90-day extension, counted from the Thai filing date, was required to file the patent application. In addition, two further extension requests were previously available—90 days and then 30 days—meaning that 210 days were provided to file the requisite documents.

From July 21, 2015, onward, if the formal documents are not filed at the same time as the patent application, they must be submitted within the non-extendable deadline of 90 days from the date of filing the application with the DIP. Failure to comply will result in the application being deemed abandoned.

There are exceptions in which the submission deadlines remain unchanged, and they apply to the submission deadline of the priority document, if applicable, which is still 16 months from the first filing date of the base application; and the deadline to submit a complete Thai translation of the specification, which is still 90 days from the Thai filing date. All of these deadlines are non-extendable.

A summary of relevant changes to the deadlines is set out below.

Patent Design

The total time to process a patent design registration from filing to grant is within 15 months, which includes 8 months and 2 days from the patent design application to publication, 6 months to conduct a substantive examination, and 2 days to grant and issue a patent design letter.

Petty Patent

The total time to process a petty patent registration from filing to grant is within three months, which excludes the publication period of 12 months after grant for an interested person to file a request for substantive examination of the petty patent.

Trademark Registration

The total time to register a trademark is 16 months, which includes 11 months to examine the registrability of an applied-for mark, 3 months to publish a mark, and 30 days to grant and issue a registration certificate.

Others

The LFA has also amended and established other timelines that relate to trademark and patent registration information, assignment of trademark and patent rights, patent and trademark license registration, renewal of trademark registration, and annuity payment, among others.

A summary of the important timelines to register intellectual property rights is shown below.

Under Section 10 of the LFA, the relevant government authority must complete the registration of these intellectual property rights within the timelines stated in the public manuals. If the authority cannot complete the registration within the timelines, it must notify each applicant in writing every seven days of the reason for the delay in granting the registration. A copy of this written notification must be submitted to the Public Section Development Committee.

The LFA’s new public manuals, procedures, and timelines should provide impetus for government authorities that register and/or grant licenses to hasten Thailand’s patent and trademark registration procedures. If they are able to closely observe and meet the timelines, Thailand will bolster its competitiveness, and strengthen its image as a reliable and transparent jurisdiction for intellectual property registration.

Download Full Article
Related Professionals

Practices

Intellectual Property

Location

RELATED INSIGHTS​

June 24, 2026
Patent enablement requirements are provided under Article 102 of Vietnam’s Law on Intellectual Property (IP Law). In particular, a patent specification must “fully and clearly disclose the nature of the invention to such an extent that, based on the specification, a person having ordinary skill in the relevant art can implement the invention.” In pharmaceutical and biotechnology patents, this requirement is more complicated and subject to more rigorous assessment. The Patent Examination Guidelines (Guidelines) of the Intellectual Property Office of Vietnam (IP Office) were amended in March 2026 to introduce Annexes III and IV for the pharmaceutical and biotechnology sectors, in which Annex III provides detailed guidelines on the assessment of specification requirements. These amendments were made under a project for strengthening capacity in industrial property examination between the Japan International Cooperation Agency (JICA) and the IP Office. Annex III provides detailed instructions on how examiners assess enablement in a pharmaceutical or biotechnology application, and offers examples of acceptable and unacceptable descriptions with regard to the enablement aspect. Enablement Requirements in Pharma and Biotech Patents Article 12.7 of Circular 10/2026/TT-BKHCN (Circular 10) adds to the requirements of Article 102 of the IP Law that the description must demonstrate the novelty, inventive step, and industrial applicability of the technical solution. For pharmaceutical composition subject matters, Article 12.9 of Circular 10 sets out that the description must present the results of clinical trials and/or the pharmacological effects of the claimed pharmaceutical composition, and must include at least the following information: Substance/mixture used. Testing method (system) employed. Information on the test results. Correlation between the pharmacological effects obtained from the tests and the application of the pharmaceutical product in the prevention, diagnosis, and treatment of diseases. The Guidelines note that pharmacological study results should be presented in a quantified manner, and pharmacological
Read More
June 16, 2026
Since the implementation of the Trademark Law 2019 on April 1, 2023, Myanmar has operated under a modern first-to-file trademark system that brings its registration framework closer to international practice. As the new regime continues to develop in practice, applicants are increasingly required to navigate formal examination requirements, substantive objections, and procedural deadlines with greater precision. This article provides a high-level review of the trademark examination process in Myanmar, focusing on the principal stages from initial review to approval, the types of objections commonly raised by the Intellectual Property Department (IPD), and the key considerations for responding effectively. A clear understanding of these issues is essential for applicants seeking to secure registration efficiently and to mitigate avoidable delays or refusals. Examination Process: Key Stages Trademark applications filed with the IPD undergo two stages of review. Formality Examination The IPD first verifies compliance with procedural requirements, including: Correct Nice Classification Clear mark representation Accurate applicant details Clearly defined goods or services Representative details, if the application is filed by a representative Other formality requirements cover translation and transliteration of any non-English or non-Myanmar elements in the mark, color claim details, applicable disclaimers, and payment of official fees. Deficiencies result in an office action requiring correction within 30 days, which may be extended upon request. Registrability Examination The IPD also assesses registrability. A mark may be refused if it: Lacks distinctiveness Is descriptive or generic Misleads the public or violates public order/morality Contains prohibited state symbols Only compliant applications proceed to publication. Responding to Office Actions Applicants must respond within 30 days of notification from the IPD. Depending on the nature of the objection, strategies may include submitting legal arguments for distinctiveness, providing evidence of acquired distinctiveness, filing appropriate disclaimers, clarifying descriptions such as color claims, or amending the listed goods
Read More
June 15, 2026
The surge in AI development has led to a desperate demand for large, high-quality training data. However, real-world data can be expensive to collect, difficult to access, and often subject to strict privacy and regulatory constraints. Synthetic data, which consists of artificially generated records that replicate the statistical properties of real-world data without reproducing specific individuals’ information, provides an appealing solution by generating artificial datasets at scale without relying on identifiable personal information. It combines speed, cost efficiency, and regulatory compliance, making it a sensible alternative for organizations seeking to reduce risks while maintaining data utility. When properly anonymized, synthetic datasets may fall outside the scope of laws such as the EU’s General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR) or Thailand’s Personal Data Protection Act (PDPA), reducing compliance burdens while still supporting high-quality model training. However, relying on synthetic data without rigorous legal due diligence could be a strategic mistake. It replaces one set of known risks (scraping, direct privacy liability) with a new set of complex liabilities. The narrative that synthetic data is a “silver bullet” for privacy and IP compliance is dangerous and could be misleading. While synthetic data addresses data scarcity, it also introduces new legal uncertainties. Legal counsel should anticipate downstream risks arising from compromised data sources. Models trained on unlawfully obtained data may need to be decommissioned, even if their outputs appear lawful. What is synthetic data? Synthetic data refers to artificially generated information created using AI techniques such as deep learning and generative models. Instead of copying real records, it reproduces the statistical patterns and relationships found in the original dataset. Synthetic data generally falls into three categories: Fully synthetic data – Entirely new data points generated from learned patterns. The model studies the structure of the original data and produces records that resemble real-world
Read More
June 10, 2026
In March 2026, the Intellectual Property Office of Vietnam (IP Office) issued a decision refusing a trademark application after considering an opposition based primarily on copyright grounds. The outcome is noteworthy because the foreign brand owner had neither trademark registrations nor applications in Vietnam at the time the opposition was filed, and the IP Office has historically applied a stringent approach to oppositions relying on copyright. The Opposition Maurten is a well-known Swedish sports nutrition brand recognized globally for its innovative hydrogel technology, which is designed to help endurance athletes fuel more effectively without gastrointestinal discomfort. The brand’s distinctive logo is characterized by clean lines and a bold black-and-white color scheme, and has long been associated with the company’s performance products. The brand’s logo is displayed above. An identical mark was filed for registration by a Vietnamese trademark squatter. In 2023, a Vietnamese individual filed an application for registration of an identical mark (Application No. 4-2023-38668), a practice commonly observed in Vietnam as trademark squatting. The brand owner engaged Tilleke & Gibbins to assist with strategy and filing an opposition to the mark. At the time, Maurten had no trademark rights or meaningful use in Vietnam, and global marketing data showed only modest figures without any local presence. Thus, to convince the IP Office to refuse the squatter’s application, instead of relying on trademark rights or use evidence, the opposition strategy centered on the copyright protection of the logo itself, as copyright arises automatically in Vietnam upon creation of the work and does not require registration. (It is worth noting, however, that the IP Office has traditionally been cautious in accepting copyright as a basis for refusing trademark applications.) On September 24, 2024, an opposition was filed on three main grounds: confusing similarity, copyright infringement of the artistic work,
Read More