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

December 2, 2014

Online Investigation Leads to Successful Raid for WWE

Subscribe to Updates
Informed Counsel

As part of Tilleke & Gibbins’ one-stop intellectual property service in Thailand, our in-house investigation team periodically conducts market surveys in key areas in Bangkok and upcountry. The team also performs online sightings to evaluate the situation of counterfeit goods as it relates to our clients’ brands and to obtain leads on individuals and businesses involved in trading fake products in the country.

Several months ago, Tilleke & Gibbins’ investigators discovered a number of local websites and Facebook pages advertising and selling counterfeit World Wrestling Entertainment (WWE) T-shirts and merchandise. In all likelihood, these local websites and Facebook pages would not have been found by global watch services, as they are predominantly written in the Thai language.

Photographs of WWE’s Superstars and events and images of counterfeit T-shirts and merchandise bearing pictures of WWE’s Superstars and trademarks were among the counterfeit goods being offered for sale on these local websites and Facebook pages. On behalf of our client, WWE, the Tilleke & Gibbins investigation team conducted a preliminary investigation into the infringers to gather information about the websites’ operators, business addresses, value of the counterfeit goods, and payment methods, among other things. Thereafter, we reported the findings to our client and issued recommendations that the client authorize a more in-depth investigation into the infringement and pursue enforcement actions suitable to the infringement.

The client agreed with the course of action set out by our recommendations. Acting on the client’s authorization, our investigation team immediately launched an in-depth investigation into the owners of the local websites and Facebook pages and obtained additional information relevant to their illegal activities, including samples and sources of the counterfeit goods and other entities involved in the operation such as shipping companies, etc.

Subsequent to the completion of the investigation, our client made the decision to perform a raid on one of the more egregious infringers. This infringer operated its business through the <hereshirt.com> website, as well as via a Facebook page, which had amassed more than 20,000 “Likes” within the past two years. Based on the Facebook page’s popularity, and the results of our sample purchases made through our investigator, the assumption was made that this infringer had received significant profits from selling counterfeit WWE T-shirts and merchandise. In addition, our investigation had revealed that this infringer was linked to a number of suppliers of counterfeit goods in China.

On August 20, 2014, the Tilleke & Gibbins raid team, together with the Economic Crime Division (ECD) of the Royal Thai Police, obtained a Search Warrant from the Central Intellectual Property & International Trade Court (IP&IT Court) to raid the residence of the infringer, who was located in a suburb of Bangkok.

The raid began with every room in the residence being subject to a search. Our raid team found that the infringer was indeed stocking counterfeit WWE T-shirts. The infringer admitted to looking for suppliers in China, ordering the counterfeit goods through a well-known Chinese sourcing website, and then contacting a shipping company in Bangkok to facilitate the import of the counterfeit goods. The infringer also mentioned that the aforementioned method is, nowadays, a typical means through which to trade counterfeit goods, owing to the following factors: the business model is simple, it requires a lower investment, and it is less risky than vending counterfeit goods in a shop or on the street.

As a result of this successful raid action, almost 300 counterfeit WWE T-shirts and other merchandise were seized, and the infringer’s Facebook page was terminated. The infringer was arrested, and will be prosecuted at the IP&IT Court for criminal offenses in violation of the Trademark Act. In this case, the ECD police also confiscated several folders containing business documents, such as purchase orders, shipping documents, and lists of customers, all of which will help to track down the sources providing the counterfeit goods from overseas. Our lawyer was also able to negotiate with the infringer to disclose information about other traders in Thailand who advertise and sell counterfeit WWE T-shirts and merchandise on the Internet, which will assist in further suppressing such counterfeiting activities.

Download Full Article
Related Professionals

Practices

Intellectual Property

Location

RELATED INSIGHTS​ 

September 24, 2026
Vietnam is implementing and developing a broad package of regulatory reforms that could reshape how IP, data, digital platforms, and product authenticity are regulated and enforced. Several of the key measures have been led by the Ministry of Public Security in its legislative and administrative capacity, as part of a broader government effort. The core reform package consists of four key legal instruments: proposed amendments to the Criminal Code, a proposed new Data Security Law, a draft Decree on Product Identification, Authentication and Traceability, and the newly enacted Decree No. 330/2026/ND-CP. These instruments include rules on criminal enforcement, data security, electronic identification, product identification and traceability, administrative violations, and cybersecurity sanctions. Combined, these measures will affect copyright enforcement, industrial property rights, trade secrets, AI training data, product provenance, online takedowns, valuation of counterfeit goods and electronic evidence. It is worth noting that, in addition to strengthening criminal penalties for IP crimes, Vietnam’s emerging regulatory framework increasingly treats infringement, data misuse, product authentication, and platform-enabled violations as interconnected regulatory and enforcement challenges. For rights holders and foreign investors, this could mean stronger tools against counterfeiting and online infringement, but also more compliance obligations around data, traceability, AI, platform controls and government-facing reporting. Expansion of Criminal IP Enforcement Proposed amendments to Article 225 of the Criminal Code would expand criminal copyright exposure beyond reproduction and distribution to cover large-scale commercial public performance and online communication of works, phonograms and video recordings. This is important because piracy is increasingly about streaming, unauthorized communication, and platform access models rather than physical copying. Aggravated copyright infringement could be subject to up to 10 years in prison for individuals and fines of up to VND 6 billion (about USD 228,300) for commercial legal entities. The amended Article 226 would expand criminal industrial property liability beyond
Read More
September 21, 2026
Thailand’s first-to-file trademark system has a serious vulnerability: it lacks both an explicit mechanism for refusing bad-faith registrations and any means of invalidating them in court after the five-year limitation period has expired. While brand owners worldwide confront trademark squatting, Thailand’s statutory silence stands out, particularly in light of AIPPI’s 2017 Resolution Q249, which recommended that every jurisdiction provide clear tools to address bad faith at all stages of the trademark lifecycle. Nearly a decade later, Thailand has yet to act. This article proposes a concrete reform blueprint, drawing on the legislative models of China, the United Kingdom, and the European Union. The Statutory Gap Under the Thai Trademark Act B.E. 2534, no provision expressly authorizes examiners to reject an application on grounds of bad faith. Section 8(10) addresses well-known marks but offers no relief where the targeted mark lacks well-known status. Practitioners have resorted to Section 8(9)—which bars marks “contrary to public order, morality, or public policy”—as a workaround. However, this provision was designed to address the characteristics of the mark itself, not the applicant’s intent. Thai Supreme Court decisions have split on whether it can reach bad-faith conduct, creating persistent legal uncertainty. The gap extends beyond examination. Civil actions to cancel a bad-faith registration must be brought within five years—a deadline that frequently expires before foreign brand owners discover the squatted mark. Cancellation through the Board of Trademarks remains available but is slow, costly, and subject to court appeal, leaving bad-faith registrations in force during protracted proceedings. The system effectively rewards squatters and penalizes legitimate owners. Lessons from International Best Practices Several major jurisdictions have already closed this gap. China’s 2019 amendment to Article 4 of the Trademark Law introduced an absolute ground for refusal: “bad faith trademark applications without intent to use shall be rejected.” Bad
Read More
September 14, 2026
Myanmar’s first-to-file trademark registration regime under the Trademark Law 2019—which became fully operational in April 2023—provides mark owners with enhanced legal protection compared with the country’s former system. Correspondingly, the current system imposes more rigorous statutory requirements for obtaining, maintaining, and enforcing rights in marks. In this first-to-file trademark registration system, however, evidence of use remains particularly significant, as it may establish acquired distinctiveness, support a claim that a mark is well-known, and strengthen the owner’s position in both registration and enforcement proceedings. Accordingly, it can be said that this framework is underpinned by three key concepts: distinctiveness, well-known status, and, importantly, use of the trademark. Trademark Distinctiveness Under the Trademark Law, signs that lack distinctiveness are generally ineligible for mark protection. These signs include generic terms, basic shapes, unstylized single letters or numerals, and signs that merely describe the kind, quality, quantity, intended purpose, value, geographical origin, production time, or other characteristics of the relevant goods or services. However, a mark that would otherwise be refused on distinctiveness or descriptiveness grounds may be registrable if it has acquired distinctiveness through its use prior to the filing date. To show this, the applicant must demonstrate that the mark became distinctive to relevant consumers through continuous, exclusive, and good-faith use in trade within Myanmar. The burden of proving acquired distinctiveness rests with the mark owner. Accordingly, sufficient evidence demonstrating both use of the mark and the level of consumer recognition attained should be prepared in advance. Well-Known Mark Criteria Myanmar’s Trademark Rules, which govern the substantive examination of mark registration applications, establish criteria for determining well-known marks, aligned with international standards. Where an applicant claims well-known status—whether to overcome a refusal on relative grounds or to oppose a third party’s registration—the registrar will assess the claim based on the following
Read More
September 14, 2026
On August 23, 2026, Vietnam’s National Assembly passed Law No. 11/2026/QH16, amending the country’s Customs Law with effect from March 1, 2027. The amendments represent a substantial reform of Vietnam’s customs-based intellectual property enforcement regime. The reforms come amid considerable external pressure. In its 2026 Special 301 review, the US Trade Representative (USTR) designated Vietnam a “priority foreign country,” citing widespread counterfeiting, weak border enforcement, limited ex officio customs powers, and the absence of controls over goods in transit. Vietnam’s legislative response signals a commitment to bringing its border enforcement practices into line with international expectations. For IP rights holders operating in or through Vietnam, the amended law introduces several tools that substantially strengthen enforcement options at the border. Closing the Transit Gap One of the most consequential amendments is the extension of IP-related customs enforcement to goods in transit. Previously, Vietnam’s customs regime applied IP controls only to goods being imported or exported, a gap the USTR had specifically identified as enabling infringing goods to pass through Vietnamese ports with impunity. Vietnam’s geographic position as a logistics hub for Southeast Asia means that substantial volumes of goods transit its ports and free-trade zones. Extending enforcement to cover these shipments brings Vietnam closer to the standard set by the EU’s customs enforcement regulation and addresses a longstanding concern of multinational brand owners whose goods are frequently counterfeited in the region. Strengthened Suspension and Ex Officio Powers The amended law introduces a dual-track suspension mechanism (Article 73(2)). Customs authorities will suspend clearance upon request by an IP rights holder (or authorized representative) who provides evidence of IP ownership, evidence of infringement, and a financial guarantee. Customs can now proactively suspend clearance on an ex officio basis if, during inspection and monitoring, they discover “clear grounds” to suspect that imported, exported,
Read More