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​ 

July 24, 2026
Indonesia has updated its fee framework for intellectual property (IP)-related government services, with implications for IP owners, licensees, lenders, digital platforms, and businesses operating in the country. Government Regulation No. 30 of 2026 on Types and Tariffs of Non-Tax State Revenue Applicable to the Ministry of Law (GR 30/2026) was promulgated on July 2, 2026, and will take effect on August 1, 2026. Key Takeaways GR 30/2026, which replaces the relevant IP service fees under Government Regulation No. 45 of 2024, reorganizes the fee schedule into separate categories for copyright, industrial designs, patents, layout designs of integrated circuits, trade secrets, trademarks, geographical indications, IP enforcement, and other categories. The most commercially relevant changes include a new copyright recordation tariff exemption for songs and music, higher fees for several trademark and geographical indication services, new IP enforcement service fees, and a new fee type for registration of fiduciary security over IP rights objects. In addition, this is the first major update for trademark fees in approximately 10 years. GR 30/2026 is significant not only as a fee update but also as a further indication of Indonesia’s increasing recognition of IP as a financeable commercial asset. By expressly assigning fees to the registration of fiduciary security over IP rights objects, the regulation places IP-backed collateral filings within the Ministry of Law’s administrative service framework. While GR 30/2026 does not create a new secured-transactions regime, this development is relevant for lenders, borrowers, and IP owners structuring financing arrangements secured by trademarks, patents, copyrights, industrial designs, or other registrable IP rights in Indonesia. Copyright: New Fee Exemption for Songs and Music Recordation For copyright, GR 30/2026 creates a fee-exempt category for recordation of works or related-rights products for songs or music, while maintaining a separate category for other works and related-rights products. It
July 21, 2026
Thailand’s Ministry of Digital Economy and Society (MDES) published a notification establishing an expedited court-ordered takedown mechanism for online content in cases of “urgent necessity.” The notification, which was issued on July 17, 2026, under the Computer Crime Act B.E. 2550 (2007), as amended, took effect the following day. It significantly expands the categories of content subject to rapid government-initiated removal. Content Categories Subject to Takedown The notification defines “urgent necessity” (section 20, paragraph 5, of the Computer Crime Act) as circumstances where any delay in suppressing computer data may impact national security, religion, the monarchy, good morals, social culture, or public order. In this regard, it establishes four broad categories of content: Computer Crime Act offenses. National security offenses. IP and other criminal offenses, where it is contrary to public order or good morals and a competent officer has requested its suppression. Content contrary to public order or good morals, a broad residual category encompassing 14 subcategories approved by the Computer Data Screening Committee. The fourth category is the most expansive. Its 14 subcategories include: Content defaming, mocking, satirizing, or devaluing the monarchy. Online gambling advertising or facilitation. Offering illegal firearms for sale. Offering baraku (hookah) products or e-cigarettes for sale. Offering cannabis inflorescences or processed cannabis products for sale. Advertising or soliciting prostitution. Content inciting violence, hatred, or social division. Unauthorized overseas employment advertising. Offering boiled kratom juice for sale. Online sale or advertising of alcoholic beverages. Content satirizing or degrading Buddhism. Money lending at interest rates exceeding legally prescribed limits. Advertising or disseminating information about surrogacy services. Forgery of documents, cards, or official documents. Enforcement Procedure In cases of urgent necessity, a competent official assigned by the MDES permanent secretary must file a petition with supporting evidence to the court with jurisdiction, requesting an order to
July 15, 2026
Ambush marketing refers to a strategy in which a business associates itself with an event, campaign, or brand without paying for official sponsorship rights. The tactic is most visible in sports, concerts, and festivals, where official sponsors have invested substantially for exclusivity. Ambush marketers may use suggestive wording, event-themed imagery, athlete endorsements, venue-adjacent promotions, or social media campaigns implying a commercial connection with the event. Common Forms of Ambush Marketing Ambush marketing typically takes one of the following forms: Direct ambushing: using event names, logos, or mascots suggesting authorization Coattail ambushing: sponsoring an athlete or broadcaster connected with the event Subtle ambushing: themed advertising, venue-adjacent campaigns, or similar visual cues The legal analysis in each case turns on whether the marketing crosses from permissible event-based advertising into infringement, passing off, deception, or wrongful exploitation of goodwill, and the risk assessment is necessarily fact-specific. Thailand has no dedicated ambush marketing statute, so legality depends on execution. A campaign that merely comments on a public event may be permissible, but one that uses protected marks, creates consumer confusion, misrepresents sponsorship status, or makes unsubstantiated claims may trigger liability under various Thai laws, as laid out below. Ambush Marketing and Thailand’s Trademark Act The Trademark Act B.E. 2534 (1991) is the primary tool for addressing campaigns that use registered trademarks, event names, logos, mascots, or confusingly similar signs. The law gives registered trademark owners the exclusive right to use their mark for registered goods, and infringement risk arises when a nonsponsor uses an event mark or a confusingly similar sign in advertising. Even referential or playful use may create liability if it causes public confusion as to sponsorship or commercial connection. The law also preserves passing-off claims for unregistered marks. This matters because event names, taglines, or mascots may not always be
July 13, 2026
When Decree No. 186/2026/ND-CP (Decree 186) takes effect on July 15, 2026, it will introduce the most significant reform of Vietnam’s administrative IP enforcement framework since Decree 99/2013/ND-CP was issued in 2013. These changes are expected to make administrative enforcement faster, more accessible, and better suited to the realities of modern IP disputes. Below are the principal reforms and their practical implications for rights holders and enforcement practitioners. The End of Notarization and Consular Legalization Among the most welcome procedural changes is the abolition of the notarization and consular legalization requirement for powers of attorney (POA) submitted in administrative enforcement proceedings. Under the previous regime, foreign rights holders were generally required to execute a POA, then have it notarized and consular legalized (if seeking customs recordal). In practice, this process frequently delayed enforcement by four to eight weeks, often long enough for infringing goods to disappear before authorities could intervene. Decree 186 removes this bottleneck, now requiring only an original or certified copy of the POA. If the document is in a foreign language, a Vietnamese translation is sufficient, provided it is certified by a competent authority or confirmed by the authorized Vietnamese IP representative. Consular legalization and notarization are no longer required. For rights holders, the practical impact is substantial. Administrative enforcement files that previously took weeks to prepare can now be completed in a matter of days, allowing much faster responses in time-sensitive matters such as warehouse raids, border interventions, and trade-fair enforcement. The decree also introduces a useful administrative simplification. Where an original POA has already been submitted to the same enforcement authority and remains valid, applicants may rely on a copy of that earlier submission by identifying the previous case file. This eliminates unnecessary duplication for rights holders pursuing multiple enforcement actions before the same