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 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
July 27, 2026
Vietnam’s new E-Commerce Law, which took effect on 1 July 2026 along with its implementing Decree No. 248/2026/ND-CP (Decree 248), marks a significant development in the country’s approach to online intellectual property (IP) enforcement, reflecting a clear shift from a reactive model of intermediary liability to one that expects platforms to play a more active role in preventing infringement. From notice-and-takedown to platform responsibility The most significant change introduced by the E-Commerce Law is the transformation of the legal role of e-commerce platforms. The existing safe harbor provisions under the IP Law and the copyright notice-and-takedown regime established by Decree 17/2023/ND-CP (Decree 17) largely required intermediaries to act only after receiving notice of infringement. Once infringing content had been removed, the platform’s legal obligation was generally considered fulfilled. The new legislation adopts a fundamentally different approach. Article 17 of the E-Commerce Law requires intermediary platforms to screen information relating to goods and services before publication in order to prevent listings involving counterfeit or IP-infringing goods, and goods of unknown origin. Rather than relying exclusively on complaints from rights holders, platforms are now expected to implement preventive measures before infringing listings become publicly available. Decree 248 further requires platforms to update keyword filters based on recommendations issued by competent authorities. These filtering mechanisms are intended to prevent prohibited listings from appearing on the platform and represent a further move away from a purely complaint-driven enforcement model. The legislation also introduces Vietnam’s first statutory stay-down obligation. Under the E-Commerce Law and Decree 248, major digital platforms must maintain automated systems capable of reviewing, warning against, and removing unlawful listings while also implementing measures to prevent repeat violations, defined under Decree 248 as conduct that has previously been identified and handled by the platform, but continues to recur. This obligation addresses one
July 27, 2026
Tilleke & Gibbins’ intellectual property specialists have authored the Thailand chapter of Trade Secrets 2026 from Chambers and Partners. This global guide examines the legal frameworks governing trade secret protection, enforcement, and litigation across jurisdictions worldwide. The Thailand chapter provides a comprehensive overview of the country’s legal regime for protecting confidential business information, covering the legal framework, trade secret misappropriation, litigation procedures, remedies, and dispute resolution. Some topics covered include: Protectable trade secrets Reasonable measures to maintain secrecy Employee confidentiality Trade secret licensing Civil and criminal remedies Litigation procedures and injunctions Damages and other remedies Mediation and arbitration The guide also examines practical issues relating to safeguarding trade secrets, defending against allegations of misappropriation, and managing trade secret disputes in Thailand. Chambers and Partners’ Global Practice Guides provide in-house counsel with authoritative commentary on practical legal issues affecting business, enabling readers to compare legislation and procedures across multiple jurisdictions. The Thailand chapter of Trade Secrets 2026 is available as a PDF through the button below. The full guide can be accessed for free on the Chambers and Partners website.
July 27, 2026
In March 2025, Thailand’s Central Intellectual Property and International Trade Court (IP&IT Court) issued a landmark judgment in favor of Luckin Coffee, China’s leading retail coffee chain. The judgment marked a significant turnaround following earlier trademark litigation involving Luckin Coffee from 2021 to 2023 that had generated widespread public attention and raised questions about the protection available to legitimate foreign brand owners in Thailand. In a significant subsequent development, Thailand’s Court of Appeal for Specialized Cases has now affirmed the IP&IT Court’s judgment in its entirety. The appellate decision brings clarity to one of Thailand’s most closely watched trademark disputes. Significantly, this is the first case in Thailand to formally recognize the trademark squatting principle. The Court of Appeal confirmed that Luckin Coffee has a better right to the disputed mark and ordered cancellation of the defendants’ trademark registration—a key application of the “better right” doctrine. The court also upheld the substantial damages awarded at first instance, providing important guidance on assessing harm from systematic trademark squatting. Award-Winning Judgment Affirmed in Its Entirety The significance of the first-instance judgment extended beyond the outcome for Luckin Coffee. The IP&IT Court judgment was subsequently recognized in the IP&IT Court’s Distinguished Judgment Awards in 2025, reflecting the complexity, novelty, and legal significance of the issues considered in the case. The defendants nevertheless appealed the judgment, challenging several key aspects of the IP&IT Court’s decision. Luckin Coffee continued to entrust Tilleke & Gibbins as their sole attorney to pursue the case at the appellate level. After considering the defendants’ appeal and Luckin Coffee’s submissions in response, the Court of Appeal affirmed the first-instance judgment in its entirety. The judgment was announced on July 8, 2026. Better Right to the Marks The Court of Appeal confirmed Luckin Coffee’s superior rights. The orders include cancellation