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

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.

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