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 14, 2018

Madrid Application Receiving Office Established in Thailand

Informed Counsel
With Thailand’s accession to the Protocol Relating to the Madrid Agreement Concerning the International Registration of Marks (Madrid Protocol) in November 2017, the Thai government is moving forward in supporting international registration of trademarks in the nation.
 
In early January 2018, the Ministry of Commerce organized an opening ceremony for its new Madrid Application Receiving Office at the Department of Intellectual Property (DIP), with the event witnessed by the Deputy Minister of Commerce, Permanent Secretary of the Ministry of Commerce, Director General of the DIP, and other high-ranking government officials. 
 
The office will be tasked with receiving and examining international applications using the Madrid system—inbound and outbound—and will also act as a center for disseminating knowledge about the Madrid system, including supporting brand owners in the international registrations of their trademarks.
 

Examination Guidelines

Pursuant to the Ministerial Regulation regarding the Madrid Protocol that was published in the Government Gazette on December 18, 2017, and came into force on November 7, 2017, once the DIP receives an international application from the World Intellectual Property Organization (WIPO) indicating Thailand as the designated country, the office will translate all the necessary information, such as the applicant’s name and address, the list of goods and services, etc., from English into Thai. At that point, the office will issue a domestic application number, distinct from the international application number, and proceed with the examination process.
According to section 18 of the Ministerial Regulation, the rules and procedures for Thai trademark applications will be applied to Madrid international applications. Given this fact, all the examination rules and procedures, including the interpretation of distinctiveness, examination for similarity, prohibition of marks, clarification of the specifications of goods and services, etc., will be based on local laws and practices, the same as for Thai applications.
 
If, upon examination, the office finds any irregularities in the international application that would trigger any grounds for refusal (e.g., nondistinctiveness of the mark) the office will issue a notification of provisional refusal to the applicant. To respond to the notification, the international applicant is required to appoint a local representative and provide a response within 60 days after receipt of the notification.
 
When the international application has been correctly amended and accepted, the office will publish the international application in the Thai Trademark Journal, the same as for applications filed via the national route. If a third party files an opposition against the registration of the international application, the office will not proceed with the registration of the opposed mark. At that stage, the international applicant must appoint a local representative and file a counterargument to the office within 60 days after receiving the opposition notice.
 
Timeline
 
As Thailand has adopted into law the declaration set out under Articles 5(2)(b) and (c) of the Madrid Protocol, the examination process for international applications using the Madrid system must be completed within 18 months; otherwise, the international application will automatically be deemed to be accepted for registration. However, in the case where an opposition action is raised by a third party, the office may still inform WIPO of a notification of refusal after the expiry of the 18-month time limit. In comparison, registration under the national route takes approximately 12–15 months before an applicant receives the first notification or notice of publication. 
 
It is important to note that, while the Madrid Protocol is an attractive option for foreign companies and trademark owners who seek trademark registration internationally due to the cross-border convenience in filing, renewing, and transferring rights it provides, the examination rules and procedures for international applications designating Thailand will not be less stringent.
 
Conclusion
 
Since the Madrid Protocol entered into force in Thailand, the nation has been receiving much attention from applicants in other countries seeking to register their marks in Thailand. The office has received 166 international registrations/applications designating Thailand as of January 15, 2018. Additionally, there are currently 20 international applications filed with the Thai DIP seeking IP protection in other member countries under the Madrid Protocol.  
 
These application figures are likely to increase in the near future with the removal of Thailand from the Office of the U.S. Trade Representative’s Priority Watch List on December 15, 2017. Thailand is therefore likely to gain increased prominence among business owners and investors interested in expanding the protection of their brands, whether through the Madrid route or the national route. 

RELATED INSIGHTS​ 

June 10, 2026
For multinational franchisors operating in Thailand, a key risk after franchise termination is that former outlets may continue operating in ways that could easily mislead consumers into believing they remain within the authorized network. To justify such operations, former franchisees often argue that the termination was invalid or ineffective. As a result, these cases are often treated as contractual disputes, making it difficult for franchisors to obtain injunctive relief before a final judgment confirms that the termination was lawful. Franchisors face significant commercial and reputational harm during lengthy proceedings, including consumer confusion, disruption to franchise restructuring, and damage to brand reputation and customer trust. In an encouraging development, the Thai court in a 2025 case responded to the problem of unauthorized post-termination franchise operations by granting interim relief, recognizing broader brand and consumer harm, and awarding substantial damages, highlighting a successful litigation strategy of framing the dispute not merely as a contractual termination issue but as trademark infringement causing ongoing commercial injury. The Subway Case From December 2024 to mid-2025, an unauthorized “Subway®” franchise operation in Thailand attracted substantial public and media attention. Reports and online discussions about unauthorized Subway® stores circulated widely after complaints arose about food quality and customer experience at certain outlets that were allegedly operating after their franchise rights had expired. Because these stores continued to use Subway® trademarks, trade dress, and overall commercial appearance, many consumers were unable to distinguish them from authorized operations, resulting in reputational risks and customer confusion that affected the franchisor’s brand and franchise system in Thailand. Subway treated this matter with the utmost seriousness and moved promptly to protect its brand, franchise system, and customers. It filed a civil action with the IP&IT Court seeking a permanent injunction and damages. During the proceedings, the court granted a preliminary injunction
May 22, 2026
Intellectual property specialists from Tilleke & Gibbins in Vietnam have contributed an updated Intellectual Property Transactions in Vietnam overview for Thomson Reuters Practical Law, an online publication that provides comprehensive legal guides for jurisdictions worldwide. The Vietnam overview was authored by Linh Thi Mai Nguyen, Thanh Phuong Vu, Chi Lan Dang, Son Thai Hoang, and Duc Anh Tran. The chapter provides a high-level examination of key aspects of IP transactions law in Vietnam, including IP assignment and licensing, research and development collaborations, IP in mergers and acquisitions (M&A), lending and taking security over intellectual property rights, settlement agreements, employee- and consultant-created IP, competition law, taxation, and non-tariff trade barriers. Key topics covered in the chapter include: IP assignment: Basis and formalities for assignments of patents, utility models, trade marks, copyright, design rights, trade secrets, confidential information, and domain names in Vietnam. IP licensing: Scope, formalities, and recordal requirements for licensing patents, trade marks, copyright, design rights, and trade secrets. Research and development collaborations: Treatment of improvements, derivatives, and joint ownership of IP, including exploitation and enforcement issues. IP aspects of M&A and security: Due diligence, warranties, transfer formalities, and taking security over intellectual property rights. Practical Law, a legal reference resource from Thomson Reuters, publishes a range of guides for hundreds of jurisdictions and practice areas. The Intellectual Property Transactions Global Guide is a valuable resource for legal practitioners seeking comparative insight into transactional IP issues across multiple jurisdictions. To view the latest version of the Intellectual Property Transactions in Vietnam overview, please visit the Practical Law website and enroll in the free Practical Law trial to gain full access.
May 13, 2026
Laos has significantly broadened its industrial property administrative review framework, most notably by extending it to cover copyright and related rights for the first time. Decision No. 0306/IC on the Administrative Resolution of Disputes Concerning Industrial Property Registration, New Plant Variety Registration, and Copyright and Related Rights Recordation took effect on April 24, 2026, replacing the previous rules from 2023, which had covered only industrial property and new plant variety matters. Decision No. 0306/IC governs how Laos’ Department of Intellectual Property (DIP) and provincial offices handle formal challenges to industrial property registrations and applications. The proceedings covered include oppositions to pending applications, appeals of refused applications, requests for cancellation of existing registrations, and—newly—disputes concerning the recordation and interpretation of copyright and related rights. These administrative proceedings within the DIP are heard by a government-appointed Administrative Dispute Resolution Committee, which functions similarly to the opposition and review boards found in other jurisdictions. Key Changes Decision No. 0306/IC covers four categories of administrative proceedings: Oppositions: Third-party challenges to a pending industrial property application before it is granted. Refusal appeals: Challenges to the DIP’s decision to refuse their application. Cancellation or deletion requests: Applications to invalidate an existing registered right on the grounds that it should not have been granted. Copyright and related rights disputes: Challenges to or interpretations of copyright and related rights recordations, including determinations of whether a work qualifies for copyright protection under Lao law. The most significant development is the committee’s new jurisdiction over copyright matters. The committee is now empowered to resolve disputes concerning copyright and related rights recordation—this includes the authority to determine whether a work qualifies for copyright protection and to interpret the scope of an existing recordation. Parties who believe a competitor has improperly recorded copyright over a work, or who wish to contest
April 30, 2026
Vietnam’s Decree No. 134/2026/ND‑CP, which took effect on 9 April 2026, plays an important role in detailing and implementing Vietnam’s Intellectual Property (IP) Law in the context of rapid digital transformation and the growing application of artificial intelligence (AI). The new decree provides comprehensive guidance on the application of copyright and related‑rights regulations, addressing key issues such as authorship, ownership, statutory exceptions and limitations, registration procedures, and enforcement mechanisms. Through these measures, Decree 134 seeks to achieve an appropriate balance between safeguarding the legitimate interests of rightsholders and fostering innovation, research, and technological advancement, thereby strengthening the state’s framework for the effective management, protection, and exploitation of intellectual property in the digital and AI‑driven environment. Some notable aspects of Decree 134 are discussed below. Copyright for AI-Created Works Decree 134 provides important guidance on the determination of copyright and related rights in works created with the assistance of AI. Article 5a reaffirms the principle that human creativity remains central to copyright protection, clarifying that copyright or related rights arise only where a human makes a substantial and decisive intellectual contribution, exercises effective control over the creative outcome, and assumes responsibility for the content and its legality. At the same time, the provision confirms that AI is regarded solely as a technological tool rather than a rights‑holding subject, thus ensuring consistency with the fundamental concepts of authorship and ownership under the IP Law. By introducing requirements on transparency, proof of human contribution, and compliance with AI‑specific labelling and technical marking obligations, Decree 134 establishes a clear and enforceable legal framework for the responsible use of AI in creative activities. Lawful Use of Copyrighted Texts and Data Article 37a of Decree 134 sets out the specific conditions under which copyrighted texts and data may be lawfully used for scientific research, experimentation,