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, 2020

New Regulations on Unfair Trade Practices in Franchise Businesses

Informed Counsel

New TCC Notification for Franchise Businesses   

On December 6, 2019, the Trade Competition Commission (TCC) promulgated another notification in relation to the new Trade Competition Act B.E. 2560 (2017) (TCA) in the Government Gazette. The notification came into force 60 days after its publication. Issued under the TCA, it addresses certain nuances of franchise businesses’ legislative implications.      

To date, Thailand does not have any single piece of legislation relating to the regulation of franchise business operations in Thailand. Thai courts often construe franchise agreements in the context of a mutually agreed commercial contract under the freedom-of-contract principle, where a franchisor and a franchisee share their benefits pari pasu, making the competition law seem out of context. In reality, as franchise business schemes are vertical integrations, franchisors’ interference in franchisees’ business operations often entails vertical restraints in violation of Thailand’s trade competition law, whereby franchisors often subtly assume dominant positions in their markets. These vertical restraints arising from franchise agreements can be in the form of price-fixing or resale price maintenance, tie-ins, exclusive dealings, territorial exclusivity, or any acts intervening in the business operations of franchisees or imposing unfair compulsory conditions on franchisees.    

Under the TCC notification, these unfair or hostile business interventions of franchisors will be subject to legal implications and ramifications under the TCA.

Key Regulations under the New TCC Notification   

The notification was enacted in light of section 57 of the TCA, with the main purpose of regulating the activities of franchisors during the validity of a franchise agreement. Three key requirements are set forth for franchisors under this notification:

1.  Pre-contract signing disclosure to franchisees

To enhance free trade and fair competition in franchise businesses, the notification expressly stipulates a franchisor’s obligation to disclose essential information to a franchisee prior to entering into a franchise agreement. This required information is mainly in relation to (1) the franchise business’s monetary information (e.g., franchise fees and royalty fees, marketing, personnel training, and inventory expenses), (2) the franchisor’s business plans and scope of after-service assistance given by the franchisors and (3) the franchisee’s scope of entitlement to intellectual property rights—mainly trademarks, patents, and copyrights—and the enforceability thereof.

2.   Offer to franchisees in close proximity to a franchisor’s new franchise location

Territorial exclusivity is one of the common pitfalls found in franchise agreements. In exchange for exclusive licenses, franchisees are often restricted by geographical region in many aspects of operating their franchise businesses, from the distribution of goods and services to the purchase of raw materials thereof.    

Under the new notification, franchisors are obligated to notify their franchisees prior to the establishment of their new franchises in proximity to any of their existing franchises. A franchisee whose franchise location is in proximity to that new franchise location can be offered the right to operate the new franchise before it is offered to any third parties. By doing so, the franchisees are given more leeway in operating their franchise businesses, thus alleviating the territorial exclusivity concern under the trade competition law. 

3.  Prohibition of unfair trade practices

In line with section 57 of the TCA, the notification sets out a non-exhaustive list of franchisors’ unfair trade practices arising during the course of a franchise agreement that may violate the TCA. These unfair trade practices include the following:

  • Unfairly obstructing the business operations of franchisees (e.g., forcing a franchisee to purchase a specified amount or quota limitation, or exclusive dealings);
  • Unfairly imposing extra-contractual conditions on the franchisees after the contract signing; 
  • Unfairly setting trading conditions that restrict or prevent the business operations of the franchisees (e.g., restrictions on selling perishable goods at a discounted price or restrictions on purchasing goods from other suppliers having the same product quality at a lower price);
  • Unfairly treating franchisees on a discriminatory basis; and
  • Unfairly conducting the business relationship in a manner other than to retain the goodwill and standards of the franchisors.

Section 57 of the TCA is considered to be a catch-all provision applicable to any unfair trade practice that does not fall under other more specific provisions set out under the TCA. When this notification is enacted under section 57, its application and implications can thus be broad enough to cover any acts of franchisors that can be deemed unfair trade practices against franchisees.

Legal Ramifications of the Notification    

In line with section 57 of the TCA, franchisors who violate the regulations set out under this notification can be subject to an administrative fine of up to 10 percent of their sales turnover in the year of the offense, under section 82 of the TCA. Apart from this, a third party who suffers damage due to such violations will also have the right to file a civil lawsuit for pecuniary damages against the franchisor under section 69 of the TCA. 

Intellectual Property Implications of the Notification    

The intellectual property rights portfolio is a vital component of franchise agreements—especially those related to the licensing of rights. Conceptually, the intellectual property regime aims to promote rights holders’ exclusivity of rights, which are considered restraints to trade, while the trade competition regime aims at promoting fair trade and a competitive market. Nevertheless, the intellectual property law’s exclusivity of rights must be under the umbrella of trade competition to a certain extent, as any unjustifiably anticompetitive activities could be deemed illegal under several intellectual property provisions. Now that franchise businesses in Thailand are to be governed by the TCA, the intellectual property rights–related conditions under franchise agreements can be regulated and enforced in a more robust manner with regard to franchise businesses by another definite piece of law.    

RELATED INSIGHTS​ 

August 13, 2026
Modern agricultural machinery is no longer purely mechanical but instead technology dependent. Modern tractors, harvesters, and other farm equipment increasingly incorporate embedded software, electronic control units, sensors, and digital diagnostic systems. While such technologies enhance efficiency, productivity, and precision farming, they also affect the manner of equipment repair and maintenance. As a result, farmers and independent repair providers may have little practical choice but to rely on authorized dealers, even for routine maintenance and repairs. Section 36 of Thailand’s Patent Act reflects the principle that the authorized sale of a patented invention usually exhausts the exclusive right of the patent owner over the specific product. This means that upon legal sale of the patented product, it can typically be used or resold without further authorization from the patent holder. This principle is relatively straightforward when applied to traditional mechanical equipment. Ownership of a machine ordinarily carries with it the practical ability to diagnose faults, replace worn parts, and restore the equipment to working order. Modern agricultural machinery, however, increasingly depends on embedded software, proprietary diagnostic systems, firmware updates, and other digital resources that may remain under the control of the manufacturer or patent holder. This tension lies within the “right to repair” debate. In the United States, on July 8, 2026, the Federal Trade Commission and five states announced a settlement with Deere & Company resolving allegations that Deere had unlawfully restricted farmers’ and independent repair providers’ ability to repair their equipment. Under the terms of the settlement, for the next ten years, Deere must provide repair resources, including software capabilities, on terms equivalent to those provided to authorized dealers. The Deere settlement highlights that the nature of ownership is changing, but legal concepts have not kept pace. Traditional patent-law concepts, including patent exhaustion, were developed with physical products
August 10, 2026
Thailand has finalized its social media KYC (“know your customer”) rules under Notification of the Electronic Transactions Commission on Measures to Prevent Technological Crimes for Social Media Service Providers (No. 2), which was published in the Government Gazette on May 5, 2026, and will take effect on November 1, 2026. While an early draft of the notification proposed requiring social media platforms to arrange identification of every user account, the final notification is significantly more targeted, focusing on paid online advertising and advertiser identity verification. Though the regulatory initiative primarily aims to combat online fraud and technology-related crimes, it also has important consequences for intellectual property enforcement, because the verified platform records that will be generated under the new requirements can help IP rights holders to identify anonymous online infringers. Key Regulatory Mandates The notification requires social media service providers to verify the identity of advertisers before their paid advertisements are published and disseminated in Thailand through social media, regardless of whether the advertising fees come from the advertisers or third parties. Verification of an advertiser is valid for one year, after which verification would have to be performed again before the platform could publish additional paid advertisements from the advertiser. Permitted verification methods are specified under the notification. A platform may verify an advertiser by checking identity evidence and confirming the connection between the advertiser and that identity evidence, with the notification giving facial comparison against certain government-issued identity documents as an example. Alternatively, platforms may verify advertisers through a digital identity verification and authentication system with an identity-proofing assurance level not lower than the level prescribed by Thailand’s Electronic Transactions Commission. The notification further requires platforms to retain only the advertiser’s information necessary to identify the advertiser, beginning from the start of the advertising activity and for
August 6, 2026
Introduction: A Trademark Paradox in Sustainable Packaging Walk into any Thai supermarket, and the label-free water bottle is no longer a novelty. Thailand’s packaging market, valued at approximately USD 15.68 billion in 2025, is shifting toward minimalist, plastic-light designs as ESG pressures reshape how brands present their products. The country generated roughly 5.68 million tons of plastic waste in 2021, with a recycling rate of only 19 percent, and regulators are now considering rules that would allow label-free bottled water relying on embossing, laser printing, or QR codes instead of wrap-around labels. As packaging itself becomes the brand identifier, a paradox emerges: designs built to say the least often struggle hardest for protection under Thai intellectual property law. The Trademark Barrier: When Shape Is Not Enough Section 7, paragraph 2(10) of the Thai Trademark Act deems a shape distinctive only if it is not the natural form of the goods, is not necessary to achieve a technical result, and does not add value to the goods. The Department of Intellectual Property’s 2022 examination guidelines apply this test conservatively, as the following examples illustrate. A plain water bottle relying on subtle contours to signal its brand is typically read as just another bottle, not a source identifier. Acquired distinctiveness offers a theoretical escape route, but it demands extensive evidence of sales, advertising, and consumer recognition—an especially heavy burden for new entrants whose minimalist packaging has not yet achieved market prominence. The result is a structural bias against precisely the design innovation that sustainability goals are meant to encourage. Design Patents: A Partial, Imperfect Substitute Design patent protection, covering a product’s shape, configuration, or ornamentation, appears to offer an alternative route. In practice, it is constrained by the same forces driving the minimalist trend. Because many brands converge on similar solutions—clear
August 4, 2026
Intellectual property (IP) protection sometimes hinges on fame and recognition. However, this alone will not always be sufficient to overcome an IP dispute when it involves contractual obligations or registered rights. Below are five cases from around the world that tackle some of the basic issues in IP registration, ownership, commercialization, and enforcement. 1. USA: Taylor Swift Trademark Application Refused Taylor Swift recently filed a trademark application to register “The Life of a Showgirl,” which is the title of her 12th studio album. When examining a trademark application, the examiner considers various factors before deciding whether it should be registered. One of these factors is whether there is a likelihood of confusion (i.e., would a regular consumer mistake the origin of the trademark). In Taylor Swift’s case, the US Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO) decided that that there would be a risk of confusion. This decision was based on the existing registered trademark, “Confessions of a Showgirl,” owned by Maren Wade, which was registered in 2015. The USPTO refused Taylor Swift’s application based on the shared key distinctive element “of a showgirl,” the lack of sufficient distinguishing terms, the marks being used in overlapping markets (entertainment and performances), and because consumers may assume a common commercial source. Maren Wade then filed a lawsuit in California against Taylor Swift and her affiliated companies, arguing that Taylor Swfit’s branding is confusingly similar in structure, wording, and overall commercial impression to her registered mark. She is also drawing on the USPTO’s refusal of Taylor Swift’s application to support her argument of a likelihood of confusion. A judgment has not yet been reached in this case, but it serves as an important reminder of the importance of satisfying the essential elements required for IP registration. 2. Australia: Katy Perry v. Katie Perry In