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​ 

June 24, 2026
Patent enablement requirements are provided under Article 102 of Vietnam’s Law on Intellectual Property (IP Law). In particular, a patent specification must “fully and clearly disclose the nature of the invention to such an extent that, based on the specification, a person having ordinary skill in the relevant art can implement the invention.” In pharmaceutical and biotechnology patents, this requirement is more complicated and subject to more rigorous assessment. The Patent Examination Guidelines (Guidelines) of the Intellectual Property Office of Vietnam (IP Office) were amended in March 2026 to introduce Annexes III and IV for the pharmaceutical and biotechnology sectors, in which Annex III provides detailed guidelines on the assessment of specification requirements. These amendments were made under a project for strengthening capacity in industrial property examination between the Japan International Cooperation Agency (JICA) and the IP Office. Annex III provides detailed instructions on how examiners assess enablement in a pharmaceutical or biotechnology application, and offers examples of acceptable and unacceptable descriptions with regard to the enablement aspect. Enablement Requirements in Pharma and Biotech Patents Article 12.7 of Circular 10/2026/TT-BKHCN (Circular 10) adds to the requirements of Article 102 of the IP Law that the description must demonstrate the novelty, inventive step, and industrial applicability of the technical solution. For pharmaceutical composition subject matters, Article 12.9 of Circular 10 sets out that the description must present the results of clinical trials and/or the pharmacological effects of the claimed pharmaceutical composition, and must include at least the following information: Substance/mixture used. Testing method (system) employed. Information on the test results. Correlation between the pharmacological effects obtained from the tests and the application of the pharmaceutical product in the prevention, diagnosis, and treatment of diseases. The Guidelines note that pharmacological study results should be presented in a quantified manner, and pharmacological
Read More
June 16, 2026
Since the implementation of the Trademark Law 2019 on April 1, 2023, Myanmar has operated under a modern first-to-file trademark system that brings its registration framework closer to international practice. As the new regime continues to develop in practice, applicants are increasingly required to navigate formal examination requirements, substantive objections, and procedural deadlines with greater precision. This article provides a high-level review of the trademark examination process in Myanmar, focusing on the principal stages from initial review to approval, the types of objections commonly raised by the Intellectual Property Department (IPD), and the key considerations for responding effectively. A clear understanding of these issues is essential for applicants seeking to secure registration efficiently and to mitigate avoidable delays or refusals. Examination Process: Key Stages Trademark applications filed with the IPD undergo two stages of review. Formality Examination The IPD first verifies compliance with procedural requirements, including: Correct Nice Classification Clear mark representation Accurate applicant details Clearly defined goods or services Representative details, if the application is filed by a representative Other formality requirements cover translation and transliteration of any non-English or non-Myanmar elements in the mark, color claim details, applicable disclaimers, and payment of official fees. Deficiencies result in an office action requiring correction within 30 days, which may be extended upon request. Registrability Examination The IPD also assesses registrability. A mark may be refused if it: Lacks distinctiveness Is descriptive or generic Misleads the public or violates public order/morality Contains prohibited state symbols Only compliant applications proceed to publication. Responding to Office Actions Applicants must respond within 30 days of notification from the IPD. Depending on the nature of the objection, strategies may include submitting legal arguments for distinctiveness, providing evidence of acquired distinctiveness, filing appropriate disclaimers, clarifying descriptions such as color claims, or amending the listed goods
Read More
June 15, 2026
The surge in AI development has led to a desperate demand for large, high-quality training data. However, real-world data can be expensive to collect, difficult to access, and often subject to strict privacy and regulatory constraints. Synthetic data, which consists of artificially generated records that replicate the statistical properties of real-world data without reproducing specific individuals’ information, provides an appealing solution by generating artificial datasets at scale without relying on identifiable personal information. It combines speed, cost efficiency, and regulatory compliance, making it a sensible alternative for organizations seeking to reduce risks while maintaining data utility. When properly anonymized, synthetic datasets may fall outside the scope of laws such as the EU’s General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR) or Thailand’s Personal Data Protection Act (PDPA), reducing compliance burdens while still supporting high-quality model training. However, relying on synthetic data without rigorous legal due diligence could be a strategic mistake. It replaces one set of known risks (scraping, direct privacy liability) with a new set of complex liabilities. The narrative that synthetic data is a “silver bullet” for privacy and IP compliance is dangerous and could be misleading. While synthetic data addresses data scarcity, it also introduces new legal uncertainties. Legal counsel should anticipate downstream risks arising from compromised data sources. Models trained on unlawfully obtained data may need to be decommissioned, even if their outputs appear lawful. What is synthetic data? Synthetic data refers to artificially generated information created using AI techniques such as deep learning and generative models. Instead of copying real records, it reproduces the statistical patterns and relationships found in the original dataset. Synthetic data generally falls into three categories: Fully synthetic data – Entirely new data points generated from learned patterns. The model studies the structure of the original data and produces records that resemble real-world
Read More
June 10, 2026
In March 2026, the Intellectual Property Office of Vietnam (IP Office) issued a decision refusing a trademark application after considering an opposition based primarily on copyright grounds. The outcome is noteworthy because the foreign brand owner had neither trademark registrations nor applications in Vietnam at the time the opposition was filed, and the IP Office has historically applied a stringent approach to oppositions relying on copyright. The Opposition Maurten is a well-known Swedish sports nutrition brand recognized globally for its innovative hydrogel technology, which is designed to help endurance athletes fuel more effectively without gastrointestinal discomfort. The brand’s distinctive logo is characterized by clean lines and a bold black-and-white color scheme, and has long been associated with the company’s performance products. The brand’s logo is displayed above. An identical mark was filed for registration by a Vietnamese trademark squatter. In 2023, a Vietnamese individual filed an application for registration of an identical mark (Application No. 4-2023-38668), a practice commonly observed in Vietnam as trademark squatting. The brand owner engaged Tilleke & Gibbins to assist with strategy and filing an opposition to the mark. At the time, Maurten had no trademark rights or meaningful use in Vietnam, and global marketing data showed only modest figures without any local presence. Thus, to convince the IP Office to refuse the squatter’s application, instead of relying on trademark rights or use evidence, the opposition strategy centered on the copyright protection of the logo itself, as copyright arises automatically in Vietnam upon creation of the work and does not require registration. (It is worth noting, however, that the IP Office has traditionally been cautious in accepting copyright as a basis for refusing trademark applications.) On September 24, 2024, an opposition was filed on three main grounds: confusing similarity, copyright infringement of the artistic work,
Read More