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

March 2, 2021

MOU on Online IP Protection: Thailand’s Initiative for Online IP Rights Enforcement

Subscribe to Updates
Informed Counsel

E-commerce platforms have become some of the most significant marketplaces in Thailand, with millions of daily business transactions and huge numbers of online users. The increasing number of online shops operating on e-commerce platforms requires new techniques to be employed in online intellectual property (IP) rights infringement cases. Both the private sector and the government have developed tools to enhance online IP enforcement, some using the latest legal technologies and artificial intelligence (AI). Many legal technologies and AI operations are still nascent and typically do not yet offer the best approach for online IP rights enforcement. For example, AI and other technologies available today are still unable to consistently differentiate between original and counterfeit products from the images and information displayed on the E-commerce platforms and the internet.

Therefore, some of the most effective measures for online IP enforcement still involve manual online searches by experienced local investigators with deep understanding of the behaviors of local users (both sellers and buyers) and the ability to link relevant information across online platforms.

Acknowledging this, Thailand’s Department of Intellectual Property (DIP), as the governmental office responsible for IP-related matters in Thailand, has initiated its new Memorandum of Understanding on the Protection of Intellectual Property Rights on the Internet. This memorandum of understanding (MOU) does not create additional rights for IP owners, but acts as a mechanism to gather all the relevant stakeholders to address issues related to online IP infringement in a unified, mutually agreeable manner.

The signatories of the MOU fall into four categories:

  • Governmental authorities: DIP, Department of Business Development, and Department of International Trade Promotion
  • E-commerce platform operators: Lazada, Shopee, and JD Central (the most popular e-commerce platforms in Thailand)
  • IP rights holders: Particularly including trademark owners facing ongoing counterfeiting problems in Thailand
  • Law firms (including Tilleke & Gibbins)

Although the MOU is not legally binding on the signatory parties, it demonstrates the intent of the government authorities and the e-commerce platforms to collaborate in the prevention and suppression of online IP infringement. This is expected to greatly improve the cooperation of the e-commerce platforms in fighting online infringement matters.

The inaugural signing ceremony of the MOU was held on January 11, 2021. Tilleke & Gibbins signed the MOU as a law firm partner, represented in the ceremony by Darani Vachanavuttivong, co-managing partner of the firm and managing director of the intellectual property group.

Moving forward, the DIP will still allow other partners to join the MOU as signatory members upon request. IP owners who join this MOU will be visibly recognized and will receive strong support from both government offices and the participating e-commerce platforms to resolve IP infringement issues in Thailand.

Joining the MOU will be especially beneficial to IP owners and e-commerce platforms, as doing so will help them obtain the benefits available through this collaborative mechanism and enhance the potential of online IP enforcement in Thailand. Together with both recent and forthcoming developments in the country’s legal and regulatory environment for online intellectual property enforcement (see, for example, this issue’s article on the draft amendment of the Copyright Act), Thailand is taking clear steps to support the adaptation of its intellectual property legislation and application for the digital age.

Related Professionals

Practices

Intellectual Property

Location

RELATED INSIGHTS​ 

August 23, 2021
The title of a video game is likely one of the most valuable assets that a game developer holds. Registering a game title as a trademark secures exclusive rights over that title and prevents third parties from using it for games or related goods or services of their own. However, whether a game title is descriptive of the computer game is an issue that has come up repeatedly in Thailand with applications to register video game titles as trademarks. According to current practice, the trademark registrar and the Board of Trademarks at Thailand’s Department of Intellectual Property (DIP) do consider a game title to be descriptive of a computer game, regardless of whether the title is related to the actual features or characteristics of the game. In a recent case, a mobile game developer decided to mount a challenge to one such rejection of a video game title trademark application. The developer, which has brought many popular mobile games to the global market, had submitted a trademark application for the title of their mobile game “Clash Royale” in classes of computer game software (Class 9) and electronic games (Class 28). This application was rejected by the registrar and the Board of Trademarks for non-distinctiveness. The registrar and the board decided that the words “Clash Royale” can be interpreted to mean “battle of the kings.” In connection with goods in the applied-for classes, these words describe the nature of the goods as “games related to battles of the kings” and therefore are not registrable because they do not exhibit the distinctiveness required by Thailand’s Trademark Act. The game developer enlisted Tilleke & Gibbins to appeal the board’s decision to the Intellectual Property and International Trade Court (IP&IT Court), arguing that the mark “Clash Royale” is inherently distinctive and not directly
Read More
August 20, 2021
On August 19, 2021, the Ho Chi Minh City Police Investigation Department shared that they are investigating a case of copyright and related rights infringement under the decision to prosecute a criminal case related to the website Phimmoi.net. This is the first time Vietnam’s police force has prosecuted a case of copyright infringement.
Read More
August 19, 2021
A comprehensive legal environment is necessary to deter and address the theft of intellectual property, especially vulnerable IP assets like trade secrets. Vietnam’s compliance with the CPTPP’s trade secret requirements is necessary to ensure a healthy business environment as the country continues its path of economic integration.
Read More
August 4, 2021
Introduction Currently, under Vietnam’s Law on Intellectual Property of 2005, as amended in 2009 and 2019 (“IP Law”), secret prior art cannot be used in evaluating patent applications. However, an approach to evaluate secret prior art has been included, for the first time, in the draft amendment of the IP Law. Below is our discussion of this interesting topic. Recognition in Other Jurisdictions Secret prior art is the name given to prior art that, at the time of filing of a new patent application, was not discoverable by the new applicant or not publicly available. It exists as a filed but unpublished application, unavailable to the public until publication. Until that point, only the applicants and the patent examiners of the unpublished application know of its existence. Even though it is not discoverable or available to the public, secret prior art can still be used as a bar for novelty in many jurisdictions. Secret prior art is not limited to situations in which the first applicant and the new applicant are different people; secret prior art applies regardless. There is, however, a domestic limitation: Applications filed and not yet published in a foreign country are not considered to be secret prior art. When the applicants are different people, the new applicant has no way of discovering the secret prior art that exists as a filed and unpublished application of the first applicant. Regardless of the completeness of the patent search, the previously filed and unpublished application cannot be discovered. At the time of filing, the new applicant’s invention would seem novel. Later, it would be discovered that the application was actually filed after another application for the same invention, barring patentability. This creates confusion and unfairness among multiple applicants. One applicant can also file two separate applications at different
Read More