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

June 24, 2021

New Guidelines Prevent Large Purchasers from Setting Unfair Credit Terms for SMEs in Thailand

Subscribe to Updates

Thailand’s Trade Competition Commission (TCC) has adopted new guidelines on unfair trade practices regarding the credit terms under which small and medium enterprises (SMEs) sell products or services to a purchaser. The new guidelines were published in the Government Gazette on June 18, 2021, and will come into force 180 days later on December 16, 2021.

In principle, the guidelines prevent the abuse of superior bargaining power, discrimination, and business obstruction when purchasers set credit terms with SMEs. The guidelines define an SME as:

  1. a manufacturer of goods with either no more than 200 employees or an annual turnover of no more than THB 500 million (approximately USD 15.75 million); or
  2. a service provider or wholesale or retail business with either no more than 100 employees or an annual turnover of no more than THB 300 million (approximately USD 9.5 million).

To be eligible for protection under the guidelines, qualifying SMEs must disclose their total number of employees or amount of annual turnover to their trade partners.

Credit Terms

“Credit terms” are defined as written stipulations referring to the agreed timeframe in which sellers of products or services permit the purchasers to make the necessary payment. These credit terms must include clear criteria reflecting ordinary business practices and reasonable justifications.

In general, the guidelines prescribe that credit terms for the trade, manufacturing, and services sectors, must not exceed 45 days. However, for activities in these sectors related to agricultural products or primary agricultural processing with non-complex production processes, the credit terms must not exceed 30 days. However, the parties may set longer credit terms if there are business, marketing, or economic justifications and contractual obligations related to the payment or credit terms.

The credit terms period will commence from the date of complete delivery of products or services. As for consignment, credit terms begin counting from the day that the products are sold out according to the agreed quantity or price.

Unfair Practices

The guidelines provide a few illustrative examples of the types of conduct that would be deemed unfair:

  • An unjustified delay in making payment for products or services, in excess of the stipulated credit terms.
  • An unjustified change of credit terms or contractual conditions without at least 60 days’ prior notice.
  • Other unfair conduct or credit term conditions that impose excessive burdens on an SME.

Before these guidelines, when large purchasers of goods or services from SMEs defaulted on their payments or used their bargaining power to extend credit terms, the SME’s only recourse was to bring a breach-of-contract claim to the civil court. When the new guidelines come into effect, SMEs will also be able to petition the TCC, which may impose administrative sanctions including fines of up to 10% of the annual revenue of the non-complying purchaser.

In addition, pre-existing credit terms are not exempt from the new provisions and could be deemed unfair if they are contrary to the guidelines or disadvantage an SME. Therefore, business operators with active or pending agreements should also revisit and consider adjusting the credit terms to ensure that they comply with the guidelines.

Accordingly, all parties who trade with SMEs should take the guidelines—especially the prescribed maximum credit terms—into account when determining credit terms and trade conditions.

Related Professionals

Industries

Consumer Products

Practices

Antitrust and Competition

Banking and Finance

Corporate/M&A

Location

RELATED INSIGHTS​ 

March 4, 2021
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 IP rights infringement cases. Both the private sector and the government have developed tools to enhance online IP enforcement, including ones 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. 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; and Law firms. Although the MOU is not
Read More
March 4, 2021
Vietnam has become a big player in the global fashion industry. Garments made in Vietnam now appear all over the world, especially in the U.S. and the EU. In this value chain, however, Vietnamese companies usually play the role of garment processors, fulfilling the orders of big brands for immediate export purposes. While the goods bearing the registered marks are made in Vietnam by local companies, the brand owners are often overseas or global corporations. As a brand owner can lose protection of its mark in Vietnam due to non-use, this situation leads to the question of what constitutes “use” of a mark when the mark-bearing goods are processed for export only, and not sold in the Vietnam market. Article 124.5 of Vietnam’s IP Law provides that: Use of a mark means the performance of the following acts: Affixing the protected mark on goods, packaging, business facilities, means of service provision, or transaction documents in business activities; Circulating, offering, advertising, or stocking for sale goods bearing the protected mark; Importing goods or services bearing the protected mark. At first glance, the above provision seems quite clear. While importing goods appears on the list, exporting goods is conspicuously absent, and therefore it is not an act of use. However, it is also clear that for the purpose of exporting, a product should go through a manufacturing or processing stage in which the mark will be physically affixed to the product or its packaging. For fashion goods, this could be in the form of a removable tag or package, a tag sewn onto the item, or a fundamental part of the garment’s design (such as a T-shirt emblazoned with a brand name, or a shoe featuring a distinctive logo). Then, the question becomes whether this act of affixing the mark on
Read More
March 4, 2021
Myanmar, which is now more than halfway through the scheduled soft opening of its Intellectual Property Department (IPD) under the country’s New Trademark Law, is well on its way to the full realization of its plans for a modernized IP system operating on par with international standards. As the first of four IP-related laws passed in 2019, the ongoing implementation of the Trademark Law affects definitions of trademarks and types of trademark applications. Section 2 of the law defines a “mark” as “either a visible sign or a combination of signs, including one’s own names, alphabet letters, numbers, graphical representations, or compositions of color and tints to distinguish the goods or services of an enterprise from those of another enterprise. Within this scope, trademark, service mark, collective mark and certification mark are also included. The ‘series mark’ consists of a number of these marks, which resemble each other on the material particulars, but may differ in some aspect—for instance, a mark with different color variations. However, there is no specific definition of what makes up a series mark in the Trademark Law itself, and there has also not yet been any clear guidance on the issue. The Trademark Rules, which set the guidelines for the trademark application and registration procedures, are still in the process of being finalized, are expected to include information on the possibility of filing series marks under the soft opening period. On December 29 2020, the IPD held a workshop to clarify various issues, and informed attendees that applications containing more than one trademark in a single application are prohibited under the new system. However, this seemed to contradict the Ministry of Commerce’s Order No. 63/2020, which had declared that the refiling of old marks under the soft opening period of the new Trademark Law
Read More
February 23, 2021
As many are already aware, following the change of government in Myanmar on February 1, 2021, a draft Cyber Security Law was proposed which attracted widespread criticism. However, less attention has been paid to significant amendments to two existing laws, some of which have a similar effect to parts of the draft Cyber Security Law. In other words, while the draft Cyber Security Law has not progressed further and is under public scrutiny, significant elements of it have found their way into law in Myanmar by other routes. Because these amendments are already law, it is very important that individuals and businesses in Myanmar understand their implications. Amendments to the Law Protecting the Privacy and Security of Citizens The Law Protecting the Privacy and Security of Citizens (2017), or the “Privacy Law,” was amended on February 13, 2021, less than two weeks after the military government came into power. These amendments chiefly address the power of the government to conduct searches, seizures, and arrests; to extend detention without judicial oversight; and to carry out broad surveillance and investigation activities that could intrude on individual privacy. The amendments accomplish this by suspending various sections of the Privacy Law for as long as the State Administration Council (the military body now governing Myanmar) is in power. The suspended sections include the following: Section 5: Search, seizure, and arrest without civilian observation The relevant part of Section 5 of the Privacy Law states, “The responsible authorities shall … when acting in accordance with existing law, not enter into a person’s residence or a room used as a residence, or a building, compound or building in a compound, for the purpose of search, seizure, or arrest, unless accompanied by minimum of two witnesses who should comprise Ward or Village Tract Administrators…”. The suspension
Read More