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

February 20, 2013

Local Distributor Partnerships: Investigate Before You Terminate

Informed Counsel

Foreign companies usually opt to appoint their local distributors as the local entity to apply for and maintain product registration and import licenses, as usually required by Asian FDAs and Ministries of Agriculture. Such appointments are normally set out in the distribution agreement. While on most occasions this is a mutually beneficial relationship, sometimes local partners who have built up the business for those products may begin to compete unfairly or commit other breaches that lead to difficulties in terms of terminating a partner.

Determination of Acceptable Breach

All commercial relationships have their ups and downs, which may not reach a level of acceptable breach to warrant a termination. Economic turndowns, weather conditions, increased competition, and other situations are all reasonable events whereby you and your local partner may need to reposition and revisit minimum sales targets and advertising spend. However, as soon as relations appear unstable and reports of unsatisfactory performance start coming in regularly, the foreign partner should look closely into the conduct of its local partner in order to head off what may amount to warranted termination.

Simple searching will reveal that your partner is disregarding your agreement. The distribution agreement likely has a clause allowing you to visit, unannounced, to inspect. In other circumstances, checks like this can also be made at the relevant Companies Registry, Ministry of Commerce, tax office, etc.

Frequently observed examples of breaches are:

  • Registration of a similar trademark for an identical product
  • Manufacture and/or sale of a competitive product without authorization
  • Non-observance of the target without any reasons or notification given
  • Conspicuous decrease in sales of some products while maintaining adequate sales of others

Agreement Review

Your next step is to go through the terms of your agreement with the partner carefully to determine whether these infringements may amount to a material breach, and to pinpoint the consequences for such breaches or infringements.

Another important step is to clearly check the dispute resolution and termination process in the agreement. You may find that arbitration is the stated dispute resolution procedure or that there has been a carve out for court injunctive relief on the occurrence of IP infringement. In the latter case, you can go to court immediately to seek an injunction.

You must check whether termination is effective immediately or after a prescribed period of time. If there is a breach, the termination process should be clearly followed, as the local partner may deny any wrongdoing on his or her part. Here, your paper trail of earlier warnings will be very helpful.

Notification Before the Termination

The termination notice should:

  • Include a list of all breaches in order to reduce the chance of the distributor thinking he or she can challenge the allegations
  • Be carefully worded
  • List all documents to be returned for a clear termination of the relationship, including the Certificate of Free Sale and cancellation of the Import License, in order to discourage your local partner from pursuing further unauthorized sales

When the situation with a breaching distributor has passed the point of no return, you have to check the name under which products were registered. In Thailand, products are required to be registered in the name of a local entity.

An amendment of the application is not possible and the foreign company has to reapply to obtain a new product registration certificate. The advantage of this method is that the local partner may not be aware of such new applications. The inconvenience is that it may take a few months before the new Product Certificate is granted, costs will be incurred, and sometimes retesting is required.

It is in the interest of the foreign company to finalize the complete process and change to a new distributor as soon as the termination is effective. However, you should first check whether an application for the same product is contrary to the terms of your agreement, especially in regard to anticompetition rules or exclusivity granted to the distributor.


Compliance Audit

A Compliance Audit is normally advised either during the course of or immediately after regulatory complaints. Compliance Audits are conducted by a team of lawyers and/or paralegals visiting local offices in order to review, collect, and assess those areas of the business that are susceptible to additional regulatory scrutiny. Typically, a Compliance Audit would encompass review of:

  1. Advertising and promotional materials (past, current, and planned)
  2. Product labels, product inserts, and product packaging (past, current, and planned)
  3. Thai FDA product registration certificates
  4. Customer complaint procedures
  5. Organizational structure
  6. Other areas as observed during the course of the Compliance Audit

A Compliance Audit is usually conducted in about one day. Findings are assessed in order to prepare the Compliance Audit Report. The Compliance Audit Report aims to assist with effecting policies and procedures to confirm continual compliance with evolving legislation and regulations. This Report sets out the practical advice and suggested strategies to identify how current processes, policies, procedures, legal agreements, and practice could be supplemented to minimize and manage the types of risks the business is currently dealing with. The investment required to conduct a full-day assessment visit and develop the follow-up Compliance Audit Report depends on several factors including (1) the level of cooperation with your local company, (2) the amount of documentation requiring assessment as discovered during the assessment visit, and (3) the scope of the review in terms of how many years of business we think necessary to include in our assessment. By knowing what risks remain and by formulating and implementing effective procedures and policies to end these, business vulnerability can be decreased significantly.

RELATED INSIGHTS​ 

September 9, 2026
On August 5, 2026, the Consumer Case Division of Thailand’s Civil Court rendered a judgment in a case involving a beauty clinic that advertised acne scar treatments using claims that the clinic was operated by a specialist physician and that the treatment, allegedly involving stem cell technology, could permanently remove acne scars. The plaintiff brought a claim against both the physician-owner and the clinic company, alleging that the advertisements were false and induced her to purchase the treatment. The court found that the clinic was liable for the false representations and that the physician-owner, as both the authorized director of the company and the medical practitioner who provided treatment, was jointly responsible. Although the plaintiff could not fully prove all damages claimed, the court awarded compensation of THB 20,000, together with interest. While the judgment arose from a consumer protection dispute, it serves as a valuable reminder that medical facility advertisements in Thailand are regulated and may expose clinics and healthcare providers not only to regulatory enforcement but also to civil liability from patients who rely on misleading promotional claims. Regulatory Framework Governing Medical Facility Advertisements Medical facility advertising in Thailand is governed by the Medical Facility Act B.E. 2541 (1998), as amended by the Medical Facility Act (No. 4) B.E. 2559 (2016). The principal secondary legislation is the Department of Health Service Support (DoHSS) Notification Re: Rules, Procedures, Conditions, and Fees for an Advertisement or Publication Concerning a Medical Facility, which came into force on November 25, 2019. Under this notification, “advertising” includes any act, by any means, that causes members of the public to see, hear, or otherwise become aware of a message, sound, or image for the commercial benefit of a medical facility. This broad definition covers not only traditional media but also clinic websites, social
September 9, 2026
On June 30, 2026, Indonesia’s National Agency of Drug and Food Control (BPOM) issued BPOM Regulation No. 11 of 2026 on Food Packaging, which expands the list of approved food-contact substances and recognizes a broader range of permissible functions for those substances. The new regulation, which revokes BPOM Regulation No. 20 of 2019, reflects developments in packaging technology and materials science. Although the new regulation provides more advantages to business actors by adding more food contact substances to the approved list for use in food packaging, there are more stringent rules and restrictions for testing. One of the most significant changes is a comprehensive migration-testing framework that sets out requirements for packaging materials, testing conditions, food simulants, and specific migration limits. Overall and Specific Migration Under BPOM Regulation No. 20 of 2019, migration requirements were primarily set out within the lists of approved food-contact substances and packaging materials. BPOM Regulation No. 11 of 2026 instead expressly requires packaging materials that come into direct contact with food to meet both overall and specific migration limits. These are defined as follows: Overall migration: The total quantity of all substances that migrate from the packaging, regardless of whether the substances are hazardous or nonhazardous to health. Specific migration: The quantity of a particular identified substance known to be hazardous to health that migrates from the packaging. Stricter Limits on Heavy Metals The overall migration limit for plastic packaging remains unchanged under both regulations at 60 mg/kg or 10 mg/dm². However, the new regulation introduces significant changes to the regulation of heavy metals. Under the 2019 regulation, four heavy metals—lead, cadmium, chromium VI, and mercury—were subject to a single combined limit of 1 mg/kg. The 2026 regulation, however, requires each heavy metal to meet its own individual specific migration limit, adds arsenic as
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
September 4, 2026
Blind boxes and collectibles have become increasingly popular, driven by the excitement of not knowing which character or design will be revealed until the package is opened. While most visible in the art toy market, the same concept is also used in the food industry. Confectionery, snacks, and other food products are sometimes sold with toys, character figures, cards, or other collectibles. A package might, for example, contain one of ten possible characters, with consumers knowing that an item is included but not which one they will receive. Some collections may also feature rare or “secret” items. For food businesses, however, adding a randomized toy or collectible involves more than a marketing decision. The food, the nonfood item, and the randomized mechanism may each raise different regulatory considerations in Thailand. Thai FDA Requirements for Nonfood Objects Packaged with Food The main food regulatory consideration is Ministry of Public Health Notification No. 310 B.E. 2551 (2008), which regulates food packaged together with things or objects that are not food. Under Notification No. 310, certain nonfood objects may be packaged together with food where they fall within specified exceptions, including objects that serve the following purposes: Maintaining the quality or standard of the food, such as a desiccant or oxygen absorber; Serving as a seasoning or as part of food preparation, such as chili powder sachets or seasoning sachets contained in instant noodle packages; or Functioning as an eating or food-preparation utensil, such as a spoon or fork included with instant noodles. Other nonfood objects that do not fall within these categories generally should not be placed inside the food container together with the food. Where a toy, collectible, or other nonfood object is intended to be sold together with a food product, businesses should therefore carefully consider the nature of