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 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
July 24, 2026
As food innovation continues to accelerate, manufacturers are increasingly introducing ingredients derived from new sources, produced using novel technologies, or lacking a significant history of human consumption. While these innovations create new opportunities for the food industry, they also raise important questions regarding consumer safety. For this reason, many jurisdictions, including Thailand, the European Union, Australia and New Zealand, Canada, and Singapore, require a premarket safety assessment for novel food ingredients before they can be placed on the market. The objective of this assessment is to ensure that each ingredient is safe for its intended use and level of consumption, does not present toxicological, allergenic, microbiological, or nutritional concerns, and will not mislead consumers. Scientific authorities typically evaluate the ingredient’s identity, manufacturing process, composition, specifications, anticipated dietary exposure, toxicological information, nutritional impact, and history of use before determining whether it can be marketed. Against this background, the Thai Food and Drug Administration (FDA) recently took an important step toward improving regulatory transparency by publishing, for the first time, a consolidated public list of substances that have successfully completed the Thai FDA’s safety assessment process, including substances determined to be novel foods and those determined not to fall within the novel food category. The list identifies the approved substances, the corresponding manufacturers or importers, approval dates, and the approved conditions of use. Although the publication does not change the existing legal framework governing novel food approvals, it provides businesses with greater visibility into the Thai FDA’s regulatory precedents and the types of substances that have previously been accepted through the safety assessment process. The full announcement is available on the Thai FDA’s website. As the list is now publicly available, it also provides useful insight into the types of substances that have successfully completed the Thai FDA’s safety assessment process.
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