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 3, 2014

Preventing Distributor Trademark Infringement

Informed Counsel

In Thailand, one of the most prevalent forms of indirect investment engaged in by foreign entities is the distributorship appointment. Through local distributors, investors can indirectly reap the benefits from the sale of their products and services without having to invest in a permanent establishment.

Affixed to such products and services are trademarks, service marks, trade names, and goodwill. It is often the case, however, that intellectual property owners avoid the simple act of registering their trademarks and drawing up a proper distributorship agreement with clear provisions on intellectual property rights. Little do they know that once the cooperative and fruitful business deal that they have with their distributor comes to an end, their failure to protect their trademark can expose their valuable intellectual property rights to the risk of infringement, committed by none other than their former distributor.

In our experience dealing with matters involving trademark infringement litigation, often, the situation entails a trademark owner bringing a case against its former distributor, with the issue at hand revolving around the distributor’s allegedly unauthorized use of a trademark and/or trade name. Commonly, such unauthorized use materializes at the end of a distributorship, with the trademark owner discovering that its former distributor has imitated its trademark and perhaps applied for registration of the mark—sometimes, even before the expiration of the distributorship agreement. We have also seen cases in which a distributor began to use the owner’s trade name as part of its company name and domain name after the term of the distributorship.

This does not, however, necessarily lead to the conclusion that the trademark owner has forever lost its rights to the trademark and trade name. In fact, under the Trademark Act, the true owner of a trademark has the right to file with the competent court a cancellation action against the imitating trademark on grounds of better right. Also, under the Civil and Commercial Code, a trademark owner can obtain a court order prohibiting the former distributor from using the trade name as part of its company name and Internet domain name. However, considering that pursuing litigation is at least 20 times more costly than filing a simple trademark application, litigation may last for almost half a decade, and there may be a significant loss of business opportunity, litigation is, by no means, a preferable course of action. 

In order to avoid a situation in which litigation becomes inevitable, two simple, but effective steps should be taken before the conclusion of the distributorship deal. First, a trademark owner must apply for registration for all of its trademarks or service marks that subsist in the distributed products or services in the territory where the distributorship will be appointed. This will significantly benefit the owner in two ways:

  1. The distributor will be blocked from registering a trademark which is confusingly similar to the owner’s trademarks; and
  2. The owner will be able to enforce its trademark rights against any infringement committed by the distributor in a straightforward and less troublesome manner, with the registered trademarks acting as the basis for its legal rights.

Second, a trademark owner must prepare a well-drafted distributorship agreement that includes comprehensive clauses on the ownership of the intellectual property subsisting in the products or services, the distributor’s right to use such intellectual property, and the limitations of such rights during the term and after the expiration of the distributorship agreement. It is common for the owner to allow its distributor to use its trade name as part of the distributor’s company name and domain name. In such an event, however, the owner must not fail to include in the agreement the limitations on such use or the specific requirements for the cessation of use of the company name and domain name after the expiration of the agreement. These clauses will allow the owner to enforce its rights more easily, should the distributor attempt to continue using the trademark and trade name without approval from the owner.

Taking into account the undeniable possibility that a former distributor may infringe upon the rights of a trademark owner’s trademark and trade name, and how the simple acts of trademark registration and preparing a well-drafted intellectual property clause can save the trademark owner from the financial burden of litigation, it is clear that these preventative measures are an absolute necessity for trademark owners when preparing to expand business through means of a distributorship.

RELATED INSIGHTS​ 

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
July 9, 2026
Recycling, upcycling, and refill-packaging models are now widely promoted as ways to reduce waste, lower carbon emissions, and respond to consumer demand for sustainable products. However, complications arise when these environmentally driven trends intersect with intellectual property law—particularly where reused or altered packaging continues to display third parties’ registered trademarks. Adding to this complexity, Thailand’s draft Sustainable Packaging Management Act aims to introduce new environmental compliance obligations that businesses must navigate alongside existing trademark concerns. Recycling and upcycling packaging may infringe trademark rights, especially in cases not protected by the first-sale doctrine—the principle that a trademark owner’s rights over a particular mark-bearing product end once the owner first sells it. Furthermore, even refill packaging carries legal risk due to specific statutory prohibitions under Thai law. Compounding these challenges, the draft Sustainable Packaging Management Act will impose extended producer responsibility (EPR) obligations on manufacturers and brand owners, requiring them to manage packaging throughout its lifecycle. These overlapping legal frameworks could deter manufacturers from pursuing ESG-aligned business models unless businesses understand how to navigate both trademark and environmental requirements. Under Thai law, this issue remains uncertain because the Trademark Act does not expressly codify the first sale doctrine, also known as the exhaustion of trademark rights. Generally, this doctrine provides that once a trademark owner has lawfully sold goods bearing its trademark, the owner’s right to control further resale of those particular goods is exhausted. The rationale is that the owner has already received commercial benefit from the first authorized sale; therefore, the purchaser should be free to resell or otherwise dispose of the goods. Although the doctrine is not expressly codified in the Trademark Act, Thai courts have recognized it in relation to genuine goods and parallel imports, as seen in a Supreme Court Judgment No. 2817/2543 in which the
July 6, 2026
Indonesia’s regulation on reporting online intellectual property (IP) infringement provides comprehensive procedural guidance for IP rights holders and their licensees in reporting online infringement complaints. Issued in December 2025 by the Ministry of Law as Regulation No. 47 of 2025 regarding Handling of Intellectual Property Infringement Reports in Electronic Systems, this regulation covers all types of IP rights. It also specifies documentation when reporting infringement, and lays out the procedures for examination, verification, and enforcement actions. Submission of Complaints Complainants may submit reports through the online system of the Directorate General of Intellectual Property (DGIP) or in person at the DGIP office. Complaints may also be filed through an authorized proxy. Under the regulation, complainants are required to provide the following information and documents: Personal details of the complainant; Brief description of the protected work or subject matter (i.e., type of IP and name or address of the infringing website, portal, account, or application, or a link to the location of the infringing content); Complete description of the alleged infringement; Certificate of registration or recordal of the relevant IP; Recordal of IP license agreement, if any; and Other supporting evidence. Verification and Examination Process Upon receiving a complaint, the responsible formality officer may request clarification or additional supporting documents. In the latter case, the complainant must then submit the necessary administrative documents within 14 days of the notification date. Once the documentation is deemed complete and sufficient, the case will be formally registered. Subsequently, the DGIP will establish a verification team to handle online IP violations, which will include the Civil Servant Investigator (PPNS), the Ministry of Communication and Digital Affairs, experts with relevant expertise in IP, and representatives from related associations such as AVISI (Indonesian Video Streaming Association). After examining the report, the team will prepare the Minutes