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

Subscribe to Updates
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.    

Download Full Article
Related Professionals

Practices

Intellectual Property

Location

RELATED INSIGHTS​ 

December 17, 2025
Vietnam’s National Assembly approved wide-ranging amendments to the Intellectual Property (IP) Law on December 10, 2025, marking one of the most significant overhauls of the country’s IP regime in recent years. The changes, which supplement and refine existing provisions, are designed to align Vietnam’s framework more closely with international standards while addressing practical challenges faced by rights holders and practitioners. The amendments will come into force on April 1, 2026. The most notable changes are detailed below. Recognition of partial and nonphysical industrial designs: Industrial design protection has been broadened to cover partial designs and nonphysical forms (class 32), explicitly extending rights to parts of products that are not independently circulated as well as digital and intangible product appearances. The law clarifies that the external appearances of nonphysical products are protected industrial designs, and circulation of digital copies of any part of that appearance will be treated as an act of using the industrial design. The provision on the industrial applicability of industrial designs has also been amended accordingly to include the uniform reproduction of nonphysical products in cyberspace. Resolving conflicts between overlapping rights: The IP Law provides a safeguard against conflicts when a single subject matter is protected by multiple IP rights. Where overlapping rights exist, the later-arising right will be terminated if its exercise interferes with the normal exploitation of an earlier right. The decision to terminate such a later right rests with the court. Use of published data for AI training: Organizations and individuals may use lawfully published and publicly accessible documents and data for scientific research, testing, and AI system training. Such use must not unreasonably prejudice the rights or legitimate interests of authors or IP rights holders. Where the documents and data fall under copyright or related rights protection, their use must also comply
Read More
December 5, 2025
One morning, a California-based company mapping its Southeast Asia rollout opened an unexpected cease-and-desist letter from a Vietnamese IP firm. To the company’s surprise, the letter asserted that a local client already owned the company’s brand in Vietnam and threatened legal action. This is not an isolated incident. In another recent matter in the sports industry, a squatter demanded at least USD 48,000 from our client to “resolve” a similar conflict. For brands entering Vietnam or expanding distribution there, these tactics can create acute risk at precisely the point at which market momentum is building. Vietnam’s rapid economic growth and deepening integration into global trade have made it an increasingly attractive destination for multinational brands. Those same dynamics have intensified a longstanding issue: trademark squatting. Vietnam has modernized its IP framework over the past decade, but its strict first-to-file trademark system continues to incentivize opportunistic filings by parties with no legitimate interest in a mark. As more foreign brands build their reputation abroad before turning to Vietnam, squatters remain alert to timing gaps and enforcement frictions. The First-to-File System: Advantages and Vulnerabilities Vietnam adheres closely to the first-to-file principle under its Law on Intellectual Property. In practice, exclusive trademark rights belong to whoever submits the earliest valid application to the Vietnam Intellectual Property Office, regardless of prior use in Vietnam. This approach offers administrative clarity and reduces evidentiary burdens compared to use-based jurisdictions. Yet it also creates fertile conditions for squatting. Bad-faith actors regularly monitor foreign markets, identify brands gaining traction, and move quickly to register those marks domestically, often long before the genuine owner enters the market or prioritizes local filings. By the time the true brand seeks protection, the squatter’s application (or registration) stands as a legal obstacle, pushing businesses toward costly oppositions, cancellations, or uncomfortable negotiations
Read More
November 26, 2025
On November 21, 2025, Myanmar’s Ministry of Commerce (MOC) issued Notification No. 103/2025 promulgating the Geographical Indication Rules (GI Rules), establishing a comprehensive framework for the registration and administration of geographical indications (GI), which are primarily governed by the Trademark Law of 2019. On the same day, the MOC released Notification No. 104/2025 specifying the required forms for GI-related matters. The GI Rules establish a comprehensive set of procedures for the entire GI application process, including filing applications, oppositions, cancellations, and invalidations, and appointing a local representative for GI-related matters. Under the Trademark Law and the GI Rules, domestic and foreign legal entities (organizations) that formally represent a defined group of stakeholders (such as producers or manufacturers of natural products or resources, agricultural products, handicrafts, or industrial products) and other competent authorities from government departments are eligible to apply for GI registration with the Intellectual Property Department (IPD) in Myanmar. Application A GI application can be submitted in either English or Myanmar language electronically, in person, or via post. Foreign applicants seeking to register a GI in Myanmar are required to submit a copy of the registration certificate from their country of origin with the GI application. This certificate must explicitly state the GI name of the protected product. Notably, foreign applicants are mandated to appoint a local representative in Myanmar to act on their behalf for GI-related matters with the IPD and appeal-related matters with the IP Agency. The form for appointing the local representative must be duly notarized in the applicant’s home country to ensure its legal validity and acceptance in accordance with the GI Rules. Application for Use of GI Logo Pursuant to the GI Rules, any interested individual, local or foreign, may submit an application to the IPD for authorization to use the GI logo,
Read More
November 21, 2025
Tilleke & Gibbins has contributed the Thailand chapter to Asia IP’s ASEAN Guide to IP Protection 2025, an annual reference covering key developments and practical considerations for intellectual property systems across Southeast Asia. The chapter offers an overview of Thailand’s current legal framework for the protection of trademarks, patents, industrial designs, and copyrights. It summarizes registration requirements, recent regulatory updates, and procedural considerations relevant to rights holders and practitioners. The chapter offers actionable insights for rights holders at every stage of the IP lifecycle and addresses practical strategies for managing portfolios, anticipating enforcement challenges, and maximizing the value of IP assets. The authors also highlight recent trends and developments in Thai IP law, ensuring that readers are equipped with the latest knowledge to inform their decisions. The complete Thailand chapter can be downloaded through the button below, and the chapter is also available on the Asia IP website.
Read More