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

July 27, 2015

Recent Changes in Thai Customs Laws and Procedures

Subscribe to Updates
Managing Intellectual Property

Major updates have recently been made to Thailand’s customs laws and procedures regarding transit of goods through Thailand and transshipment. In addition, brand owners must now record their marks in order to comply with the Royal Thai Customs Department’s new customs recordation procedures.

Transit and Transshipment

Thailand recently passed the Customs Act (No. 21) B.E. 2557 (2014)—an amendment to the Customs Act B.E. 2469 (1926). Effective on March 5, 2015, the amendment aims to rectify the lack of clarity regarding how Customs should handle goods that simply pass through Thailand and goods that are transshipped in Thailand, by adding the definitions of “border crossing” and “transshipment” to the law and detailing Customs procedures of goods in such processes.

This distinction between goods being imported into Thailand versus goods crossing the border or being transshipped is important, because it determines the applicable taxes and requirements, and also what Customs may or may not do with the goods. Before the introduction of these terms, it was unclear as to whether Customs officers had a duty to inspect goods that were merely passing through or being transshipped in Thailand, and as a result, Customs inspections were inconsistent, causing confusion among both Customs and business operators.

Customs now uses the term “border crossing” to refer to goods that have both an origin and a final destination outside of Thailand, but that engage in transit through the country to reach their final destination. The term “transshipment” is used to refer to goods changing a conveyance while in transit in Thailand, whereby the starting point and the end point of transportation are outside of Thailand.

After the amendment, the law explicitly states that goods crossing the border or being transshipped are not subject to tax, and empowers Customs officers to inspect and search such goods without a search warrant, so long as there is a reason to believe that:

  • the goods are connected to terrorism;
  • the goods are in violation of international stability, peace, or safety;
  • the place of origin of the goods has been falsely declared; or
  • the goods are illicit.

If the goods match one of these criteria, they may be confiscated and then destroyed or re-exported immediately.

The term “illicit” is not defined in this law. However, as Thailand’s intellectual property law only prohibits the importation of infringing products and not their transition—and the transition of goods is not considered to be an importation of goods—goods in transit that are shipped by third parties without the authorization of the intellectual property owner are not deemed to be illicit goods, unless there is evidence showing that such goods were imported into Thailand.

Customs Recordation

Customs recordation serves as an important border protection measure in Thailand. In the past, in addition to Customs recordation through the Department of Intellectual Property (DIP), Customs allowed brand owners to record trademarks that they wanted Customs to monitor directly with Customs, along with detailed information about the trademarks and the names of authorized importers. Customs later recorded such information on their intranet to enable Customs inspectors to obtain the contact details of brand owners or their representatives if they found goods suspected to be counterfeits. Information about goods and trademark validity, however, was not included.

After a meeting in March 2015 between the Intellectual Property Rights Coordination Center of the Royal Thai Customs Department and several private trademark representatives, a new Customs software program was announced. The new Customs software program, developed by the Intellectual Property Rights Coordination Center, facilitates the filing of recordations with the DIP. Up-to-date contact details of trademark owners and their representatives, information on trademarks including the validity of such trademarks, and lists of goods, will be stored in a database which is accessible to Customs officers throughout Thailand. If Customs officers find suspected counterfeit goods bearing a trademark that has been recorded through the Customs recordation procedure at the DIP, Customs will contact the brand owner’s appointed representative.

This new procedure and Customs software program will allow Customs to more efficiently inspect products which bear trademarks that have been recorded with Customs, as Customs officers no longer have to inquire at the DIP to obtain information on trademarks. As a result of this change in procedure, brand owners must now submit Customs recordations only through the DIP if they would like Customs to continue monitoring their trademarks and verifying seized products. This will be a more efficient way for Customs to monitor all recorded trademarks without delay.

Download Full Article
Related Professionals

Practices

Intellectual Property

Location

RELATED INSIGHTS​ 

July 25, 2025
Over the first half of 2025, the government of Vietnam has implemented a comprehensive suite of legislative reforms that significantly impact the country’s intellectual property (IP) framework. These amendments, most of which took effect on 1 July 2025, span the criminal, civil, administrative, and judicial sectors, and are part of a broader initiative to modernize Vietnam’s legal infrastructure, strengthen enforcement mechanisms, and harmonize domestic regulations with international standards. A summary of the key legislative changes and their potential implications for IP protection and enforcement across Vietnam is provided below. Criminal Code: Stricter penalties Under the 2025 amendments to Vietnam’s Criminal Code, penalties for offenses involving the manufacturing and trading of counterfeit goods have been significantly escalated. Individuals convicted of such violations now face fines ranging from VND 200 million to VND 2 billion (approximately USD 7,700 to USD 77,000; up from VND 100 million to VND 1 billion). For corporate entities, the penalties are even more severe, with fines ranging from VND 2 billion to VND 40 billion (roughly USD 77,000 to USD 1.54 million; up from VND 1 billion to VND 20 billion). These heightened penalties reflect the government’s intensified efforts to deter counterfeit-related crimes and protect consumer rights. Law on Handling Administrative Violations: Extended statute of limitations and application of electronic procedure The statute of limitations for addressing administrative violations in the IP sector is still two years. However, in cases where such violations are referred by procedural authorities, this period is extended by one year. The time taken by these authorities to process the case is now included within the overall limitation period. In addition, the Law on Handling Administrative Violations facilitates the use of electronic procedures, provided that the necessary infrastructure, technical systems, and information conditions are in place. Specifically, enforcement authorities are now permitted
Read More
July 21, 2025
Distinctiveness is a fundamental requirement for a trademark’s registration and protection under Thai law. The Thai courts typically assess distinctiveness based on a mark’s inherent characteristics rather than its use, as proving acquired distinctiveness through use requires substantial evidence, including the duration of use, extent of distribution and promotional efforts. However, the Intellectual Property and International Trade Court (IP & IT Court) has recently ruled that the figurative mark WEPLAY had acquired distinctiveness through use – an uncommon ruling under Thai trademark law. Subsequently, the Court of Appeal for Specialised Cases affirmed the mark’s inherent distinctiveness based on a holistic assessment of its components. This article discusses the criteria for proving both inherent and acquired distinctiveness, offering examples from both courts to provide valuable insights into case preparation and understanding of how the courts assess distinctiveness. Background In 2017 the plaintiff filed a trademark application for the mark depicted below for goods in Class 28, including toy building blocks: The registrar rejected the application on the grounds of non-distinctiveness under Section 7 of the Trademark Act. The plaintiff appealed to the Board of Trademarks, which considered that, when the term ‘weplay’ is used for goods in Class 28, it is descriptive of the nature of the goods applied for as “playthings”. Therefore, ‘weplay’ was deemed nondistinctive under Section 7, Paragraph 2(2) of the Trademark Act. IP & IT Court decision In 2024 the IP & IT Court ruled that the term ‘weplay’ is not a coined or invented word; instead, it is a combination of ‘we’ and ‘play’, conveying the meaning of ‘we play’. When the term is used for goods in Class 28, it describes the nature of the goods as “playthings”. Consequently, the mark was deemed non-distinctive. However, the court considered the evidence presented by the plaintiff,
Read More
July 14, 2025
Life sciences specialists from Tilleke & Gibbins have updated the firm’s guide to pharmaceutical data exclusivity regulations and practices in Southeast Asia. This guide contains quick-reference information on the availability of data exclusivity protections and limitations in Cambodia, Indonesia, Laos, Malaysia, Myanmar, Thailand, and Vietnam. Developing and launching a new drug on a commercial scale requires an enormous amount of time and investment in research and development (R&D), including pre-clinical testing and clinical trials. When considering the aggregate amount of drug development costs, it is important to recognize that this includes not only the investment in developing new drugs that get approved by a government food and drug regulator and are successfully brought to market, but also the R&D expenditures on a large number of potential pharmaceutical compounds and products that never actually make it to market. In particular, considerable investment is required in order to conduct and produce clinical trial data—to prove safety, efficacy and effectiveness of a new drug—that would warrant marketing approval by the regulatory authority. Such data is proprietary in nature and highly valuable for a research-based pharmaceutical company that develops an original drug. On the other hand, patent law typically confers generic drug manufacturers with the ability to engage in various preparatory activities with a view to obtaining marketing approval for a generic product before the patent for the original drug expires (commonly known as a “Bolar provision”). Since a generic drug maker may submit an application for marketing approval of a generic product before the relevant patent expires, the extent to which the drug originator’s data submitted to the regulatory authority is protected—or in other words, the extent to which the generic company may rely on the drug originator’s previously filed data, which underpins the safety and efficacy of the drug, to support
Read More
June 30, 2025
Vietnam is making notable strides in decentralization, aiming to grant greater autonomy to local government entities to streamline administrative procedures. As part of this effort, the government issued Decree No. 133/2025/ND-CP on decentralization of state management of the Ministry of Science and Technology dated June 12, 2025 (Decree 133). Effective from July 1, 2025, Decree 133 decentralizes and delegates numerous state management functions—including in intellectual property (IP) and technology transfer—to provincial-level People’s Committees (PCs). This reform signals a profound shift in how IP rights are administered and enforced across Vietnam. While this offers new opportunities for IP owners, agents, and innovators, it also introduces additional operational complexities. Impact on IP and Technology Transfer Decree 133 significantly reallocates responsibilities in IP and technology transfer, primarily to provincial-level PCs. Provincial PCs and other provincial authorities are now empowered to handle a wide range of tasks, including but not limited to the following: Issuance of duplicates and reissuance of certificates of registration. Registration of license agreements for the transfer of usage rights for industrial property objects (e.g., trademarks, patents) and recording amendments, extensions, or early terminations of such agreements. Enforcing decisions on compulsory licensing of patent use rights. Evaluation and approval of technology transfer contracts—a key step in facilitating localized technological advancements. Permitting the establishment of foreign-invested scientific organizations and their branches, to encourage foreign direct investment in local R&D and technology development. Approval of provincial-level R&D tasks, aligning with local socio-economic development priorities. Legal Implications The decentralization and delegation brought forth by Decree 133 carry several significant legal implications: Echoing Decree 133, the Intellectual Property Office of Vietnam issued Notification No. 2351/TB-SHTT on June 26, 2025, announcing the cessation of 19 administrative procedures at the national level. Specifically, from July 1, 2025, the IP Office will no longer accept requests related
Read More