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​ 

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
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
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,
June 10, 2026
For multinational franchisors operating in Thailand, a key risk after franchise termination is that former outlets may continue operating in ways that could easily mislead consumers into believing they remain within the authorized network. To justify such operations, former franchisees often argue that the termination was invalid or ineffective. As a result, these cases are often treated as contractual disputes, making it difficult for franchisors to obtain injunctive relief before a final judgment confirms that the termination was lawful. Franchisors face significant commercial and reputational harm during lengthy proceedings, including consumer confusion, disruption to franchise restructuring, and damage to brand reputation and customer trust. In an encouraging development, the Thai court in a 2025 case responded to the problem of unauthorized post-termination franchise operations by granting interim relief, recognizing broader brand and consumer harm, and awarding substantial damages, highlighting a successful litigation strategy of framing the dispute not merely as a contractual termination issue but as trademark infringement causing ongoing commercial injury. The Subway Case From December 2024 to mid-2025, an unauthorized “Subway®” franchise operation in Thailand attracted substantial public and media attention. Reports and online discussions about unauthorized Subway® stores circulated widely after complaints arose about food quality and customer experience at certain outlets that were allegedly operating after their franchise rights had expired. Because these stores continued to use Subway® trademarks, trade dress, and overall commercial appearance, many consumers were unable to distinguish them from authorized operations, resulting in reputational risks and customer confusion that affected the franchisor’s brand and franchise system in Thailand. Subway treated this matter with the utmost seriousness and moved promptly to protect its brand, franchise system, and customers. It filed a civil action with the IP&IT Court seeking a permanent injunction and damages. During the proceedings, the court granted a preliminary injunction