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

May 21, 2013

Plant Variety Protection: New Announcement Impacts IP Rights and Profit Sharing

Informed Counsel

In Thailand, the Plant Varieties Protection Act B.E. 2542 (1999) provides protection for plant varieties that possess novelty, stability, uniformity, and distinctiveness. Once protected, the rights holder of a new plant variety has the sole right to produce, sell, distribute, import, export, or possess the plant for any of these purposes.

Section 52 of the Plant Varieties Protection Act stipulates that a person who collects, procures, and gathers wild plant varieties and general domestic plant varieties for the purpose of developing new varieties, education, research, and studies for commercial interests may do so with a valid permit granted by the Department of Agriculture (DOA). The permit holder (known as the “grantee”) must also enter into a profit-sharing agreement with the DOA (the grantor), which requires that any monetary gains from the commercial exploitation of such plant variety(ies) be shared with the DOA.

Although the Plant Varieties Protection Act took effect in 1999, the DOA only issued an “Announcement Regarding Forms for Application for Permission and Profit-Sharing Agreement under Section 52” (the Announcement) on January 29, 2013. This article will provide an overview of the key provisions of the Announcement as they relate to intellectual property rights and the profit-sharing scheme.

Intellectual Property Rights

The Announcement clearly sets out that the grantee does not have any intellectual property right or other rights to the plant varieties and/or parts thereof covered by the permit. The grantee is, however, allowed to use the plant varieties that are collected, procured, or gathered or the results from the developments, studies, and research for commercial purposes.

If these activities result in new creations, the grantee is entitled to seek intellectual property protection for the resulting products or innovations. In doing so, the grantee must inform the DOA of any intellectual property rights filings. If the grantee decides not to apply for IP protection, it must notify the DOA, and the DOA will have a right of first refusal as to whether it wishes to apply for the IP protection on the creations/innovations, and to negotiate with the grantee as to whether the rights in the creations/innovations will be assigned to the DOA, with or without consideration. If the DOA declines to acquire such right or the negotiation fails, the grantee can then assign its right to a third party. Any considerations received from the assignment are considered as use for commercial purpose, and hence the grantee is obligated to share the profits with the DOA.

Profit Sharing

If the grantee uses the plant varieties and/or parts thereof that are collected, procured, or gathered or that result from the developments, studies, and research for commercial purposes, the grantee must share the profits from these activities with the DOA. The profits can be shared in the form of property, technological advances, technology transfer, personnel development, or any other types of profits. This will be determined according to the approved profit-sharing proposal based on net sales or proceeds from the services resulting from such commercial use.

If the grantee allows or authorizes a third party to manufacture, use, or yield any profits from the products developed employing the protected IP rights acquired through use or development of the plant varieties, the grantee needs to inform the DOA and share the profits from this arrangement. The duty to share the benefit continues for as long as the grantee obtains the commercial benefits, but no longer that the period of IP protection.

If the grantee acts as an agent for another person, the profits will be calculated from the profits obtained by the principal. However, the grantee is obligated to share these profits with the DOA as if the profits were obtained by the grantee.

Implications for Grantees

If you are a grantee, what does the Announcement mean for you? Neither the Plant Varieties Protection Act nor the Announcement provides a specific definition of “profit,” but it appears to include:

  • Consideration received in exchange for an assignment or authorization for other parties to use the IP.
  • Net sales of products developed employing the protected IP rights acquired through use or development of the plant varieties.

As a grantee, you are obligated to share any such profits with the DOA. Regardless of whether you commercially exploit the IP right yourself or assign it to others, you continue to have the duty to share the profit.

The Announcement holds that you can share profits as property, technological advances, technology transfer, personnel development, or any other types of profits, but it lacks guidelines on the rate and amount to be shared. It is uncertain whether you can negotiate the profit sharing or whether the DOA will impose a specific rate and amount.

Further, the Announcement stipulates that your duty to share the benefit continues for as long as you enjoy such commercial benefits, but no longer than the period of IP protection. While this appears to be a very straightforward statement, in reality it could be difficult to reduce into practice. For example, if you will share the profits in the form of technology transfer or personnel development, how can you quantify the appropriate amount of consideration for profit-sharing purposes?

This lack of clarity regarding how profits will be shared, combined with the requirement to approve a profit-sharing scheme at an early stage of the process, may discourage investment in research and studies on plant varieties. Innovators will therefore need to closely monitor for further guidelines or directions on how these procedures will be implemented in practice, so that they can be assured that their research investments will be worthwhile.

RELATED INSIGHTS​ 

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
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,
September 7, 2026
Indonesia’s Constitutional Court (Mahkamah Konstitusi) has reinstated a key provision limiting pharmaceutical patent protection, signaling a renewed commitment to balancing patent rights with public access to medicines. In its ruling to Case No. 255/PUU-XXIII/2025, the court partially granted a petition for judicial review of Law No. 65 of 2024, which had amended the country’s Patent Law, and ordered the restoration of a provision that had excluded certain pharmaceutical inventions from patentability. The decision took effect immediately upon its pronouncement at the court’s plenary session on August 28, 2026. Background The petition challenged the removal of article 4(f) from Law No. 13 of 2016 concerning Patents (Patent Law), as amended by Law No. 65 of 2024. Article 4(f) had excluded from patentability certain inventions relating to new uses of known substances. The petitioners argued that removing this provision would open the door to patent protection for second medical use inventions and facilitate patent evergreening—practices that can extend exclusivity periods, delay generic market entry, and reduce public access to affordable medicines. The petitioners included several patient advocacy and public-interest organizations: the Indonesian Dialysis Patients Community Association, the Indonesian Association of Drug Abuse Victims (PKNI), the Indonesian Pulmonary Hypertension Foundation (YHPI), the Rekat Peduli Indonesia Foundation, and the Indonesian Positive Women’s Association (IPPI), along with the Indonesia for Global Justice Association and four individual petitioners. The petitioners also challenged the constitutionality of the phrase “interested party” in article 70(1) of the Patent Law, arguing that it should be construed expressly to clarify who has standing to appeal a decision to grant a patent before the Board of Patent Appeal, and to allow a broader range of parties—such as patent holders, licensees, consumer organizations, prosecutors, aggrieved third parties, and others who may suffer direct or indirect harm from the grant of a patent—to
September 2, 2026
Thailand and China have a longstanding and significant trade relationship, which increasingly extends to e-commerce and digitally enabled supply chains. While these channels create new opportunities for businesses to reach consumers across borders, their growth also brings greater exposure to intellectual property (IP) infringement across jurisdictions and online platforms. Effective cooperation between the two countries’ enforcement authorities has therefore become increasingly important. To strengthen cooperation in this area, Thailand and China signed a memorandum of understanding (MOU) on IP enforcement in Beijing on July 20, 2026, during the Thai prime minister’s official visit to China. Officially titled “Memorandum of Understanding Between the State Administration for Market Regulation of the People’s Republic of China and the Ministry of Commerce of the Kingdom of Thailand on Cooperation in the Field of Intellectual Property Enforcement,” the MOU forms part of a broader bilateral agenda covering industrial and supply chains, participation by micro, small, and medium-sized enterprises (MSMEs), cooperation associated with the ASEAN–China Free Trade Area 3.0, and progress on the registration of Thai geographical indications in China. The MOU establishes a bilateral framework for cooperation and coordination in five broad areas: Strengthening dialogue in IP enforcement; Enhancing information sharing; Facilitating the enforcement of IP rights in cases arising in the parties’ domestic markets and on online platforms, in accordance with their respective domestic laws; Promoting cooperation in IP enforcement training and human resource development; and Undertaking other cooperation activities agreed upon by both sides. The Department of Intellectual Property (DIP) will serve as the principal coordinating agency for Thailand, while the Bureau of Law Enforcement and Inspection in China’s State Administration for Market Regulation (SAMR) will serve in that role for China. The framework is particularly relevant to the growth of e-commerce, as it covers infringement in the domestic markets and on