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

September 3, 2019

Marrakesh Treaty and Exemptions to Copyright Infringement for Disabled Persons in Thailand

Subscribe to Updates
Informed Counsel

On January 28, 2019, Thailand, as a member state of the World Intellectual Property Organization (WIPO), became the 49th contracting party to accede to theO Marrakesh Treaty to Facilitate Access to Published Works for Persons Who Are Blind, Visually Impaired or Otherwise Print-Disabled, which became legally binding on Thailand on April 28, 2019. In order to comply, Thailand enacted an amendment to the Copyright Act B.E. 2537 (1994) which became effective on March 11, 2019, in the form of Copyright Act (No. 4) B.E. 2561 (2018).

This article examines the purpose of the Marrakesh Treaty, discusses how the latest amendment to Thailand’s Copyright Act attempts to implement the country’s obligations under the treaty, and examines how the Copyright Act (No. 4) may result in unexpected controversy.

The Marrakesh Treaty

The Marrakesh Treaty is intended to help the visually impaired access copies of printed materials by allowing “authorized entities” to create accessible versions of them without having to seek the prior agreement of, or paying a royalty to, the copyright owner. The Marrakesh Treaty aims to improve the availability of printed works in accessible formats for visually impaired persons worldwide, and the new legislation—Copyright Act No. 4—is intended to pursue that goal by easing the circulation of such materials to defined authorized entities and persons within Thailand and on the international market.

The most significant change in Copyright Act No. 4 pursuant to that goal is section 32/4, and the enabling secondary legislation under the Notification of the Ministry of Commerce B.E. 2562 (2019) issued on February 28, 2019, which together provide an exemption to copyright protections to enable access to published works by disabled readers (as defined in the act).

Exemption Under the New Act

The exemption from copyright infringement under the new act applies to people with visual, hearing, physical, or intellectual disabilities or learning disorders, and to authorized entities founded and operating for the benefit of such individuals, conducting business on a non-profit basis only. The act designates that the steps leading to claiming an exemption must not be in conflict with the copyright owner’s normal exploitation of their copyrighted work, which could then lead to an unreasonable prejudice of the copyright owner’s legitimate right. It is important to note that an authorized entity is required to put in place certain measures to ensure that other persons, who do not meet the definition of “disabled persons” under the act, are not able to access the copyrighted works made available strictly for those who do meet the definition.   

However, the wording of the provisions under the new act has raised a number of interesting issues related to the prevention of misuse of this humanitarian exemption, and the potential for it to be used as a backdoor to copyright infringement.

Definition of Disabled Persons

Some controversy has been raised regarding the definition of “qualified disabled persons,” as stipulated in Copyright Act No. 4—notably that the term in the act seems to be much broader than required by the Marrakesh Treaty.

The Marrakesh Treaty limits the exemptions to copyright infringement provisions to “print-disabled persons”—a term which is broadly accepted to refer to visual impairment. However, Copyright Act No. 4 extends the exemption to “persons with visual, hearing, physical, or intellectual disabilities or learning disorders.” That expands the scope of exemption far beyond the Marrakesh Treaty requirements, raising difficult questions over how the scope of rights of disabled persons should be defined, and raising the potential for the rights of copyright owners to be eroded far beyond the intention of the WIPO members.

Limitations on Access to Copyrighted Works

In addition to providing too broad a scope of exemption regarding the definition of disabled persons, Copyright Act No. 4 provides potentially inadequate limitations to access, as it does not clearly specify what measures are appropriate to prevent exempted copyrighted works from being exploited by others. Copyright Act No. 4 does not set forth appropriate means to monitor whether an authorized entity, acting for those who are defined disabled readers, is operating within the scope allowed, despite the unreasonable prejudice to the copyright owner’s legitimate right that would arise in such a situation. For example, if an association that produced audiobooks for the visually impaired under Copyright Act No. 4 was found to also be making them available to non-visually impaired persons, Copyright Act No. 4 would provide no specific preventative measures, nor any remedy to the copyright owner.

Conclusion

Thailand’s amended Copyright Act is rooted in an admirable attempt to provide a clear humanitarian perspective to Thai copyright law, and to assist those with disabilities, pursuant to the global initiative to increase access to print works for the visually impaired. However, the amendments go far beyond that, leaving several controversial issues about which copyright owners and IP practitioners need to be cognizant in order to foster an adequate balance between copyright owners’ rights and the public interest. The advantages and disadvantages of the amended section 32/4 of Copyright Act No. 4 will become clearer in the future, once access to copyrighted works by defined disabled persons increases. In the meantime, copyright owners should be aware of the potential for misuse, and should remain vigilant toward the increased need to protect their rights.

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