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

April 17, 2015

Refilling Genuine Packaging with Unauthorized Products

Bangkok Post, Corporate Counsellor Column

Counterfeiters in Thailand often refill genuine packaging and containers with unauthorized products, thus passing off the goods as genuine commodities. This problem is widespread. Refilled goods don’t pass through regulatory standards or quality control and so they can have harmful effects on consumers.

In Thailand, refilled products generally fall into two categories:

  • products for consumption, such as fish sauce and liquor; and
  • commodities, such as shampoos, toner and ink cartridges, and lubricants.

One common practice involves refilling genuine liquor bottles with methanol instead of ethanol. Methanol, a non-drinkable type of industrial alcohol, is less expensive than ethanol but produces the same effect of intoxication. A consumer may be blinded—or perhaps even killed—if he or she consumes more than 60-250 milliliters of methanol. On November 9, 2009, more than 30 prisoners at Thanyaburi prison were admitted to hospital after consuming methanol. Four prisoners died as a result.

Refilled toner cartridges also pose a significant danger to consumers. The materials that constitute unauthorized toner powder in refilled cartridges are unknown to consumers and may contain harmful chemicals that can accumulate in the body and cause the onset of deadly diseases over long periods of time. For example, office staff who work in proximity to a printer that uses refilled toner cartridges may breathe in harmful fumes from the printer on a daily basis.

In Thailand, Section 272(1) of the Penal Code allows for legal action to be taken against an offender who commits an act of refilling that uses names, pictures, marks, or any terms used in other people’s business without the proper authorization. Violators face up to one year imprisonment and/or a fine of up to THB 2,000. The offense is compoundable, meaning that the legal action can be settled between the parties.

In some countries, courts have held that refilling is a form of trademark infringement. In Thailand, however, this is not yet the case. Many contend that Thailand should consider refilling as a form of trademark infringement, as the penalties for trademark infringement are more severe than those in Section 272(1) of the Penal Code. The maximum punishment for trademark infringement under the Thai Trademark Act is up to four years in jail and/or a fine of up to THB 400,000.

In 2012, the Subcommittee of Law Development on Trademarks proposed amending the Trademark Act with the addition of Section 110/1, which would clearly state that “refilling” is an offense under the Thai Trademark Act.

The amendment would state that it is an offense to refill packaging or containers bearing registered trademarks to mislead people into believing that such goods are the products of such registered trademark owners.

The punishment for a refilling offense would be the same as for forgery of another person’s registered trademark, as found in Section 108 of the Trademark Act—up to four years in prison and/or a fine of up to THB 400,000. The amendment is pending review by the Counsel of State.

If this proposed amendment goes ahead, the new law would serve as a greater deterrent against refilling and also provide more protection to consumers. Also, if this provision is enacted, an act of illegal refilling would become a non-compoundable offense, meaning that offenders would not be able to settle a case with an intellectual property owner. This would act as a further deterrent, as the offender would be subject to the full prosecution process.

The dangers of refilling are no different from those of other forms of trademark infringement. In fact, the dangers are arguably more pronounced, as genuine packaging and containers that have been refilled with substandard products are more difficult to differentiate from authentic products, creating even more confusion.

The law should therefore be amended to include more severe punishments for counterfeiters who refill genuine packaging and containers with unauthorized products in order to provide a greater source of deterrence and to safeguard public health and safety.

RELATED INSIGHTS​ 

August 4, 2026
Intellectual property (IP) protection sometimes hinges on fame and recognition. However, this alone will not always be sufficient to overcome an IP dispute when it involves contractual obligations or registered rights. Below are five cases from around the world that tackle some of the basic issues in IP registration, ownership, commercialization, and enforcement. 1. USA: Taylor Swift Trademark Application Refused Taylor Swift recently filed a trademark application to register “The Life of a Showgirl,” which is the title of her 12th studio album. When examining a trademark application, the examiner considers various factors before deciding whether it should be registered. One of these factors is whether there is a likelihood of confusion (i.e., would a regular consumer mistake the origin of the trademark). In Taylor Swift’s case, the US Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO) decided that that there would be a risk of confusion. This decision was based on the existing registered trademark, “Confessions of a Showgirl,” owned by Maren Wade, which was registered in 2015. The USPTO refused Taylor Swift’s application based on the shared key distinctive element “of a showgirl,” the lack of sufficient distinguishing terms, the marks being used in overlapping markets (entertainment and performances), and because consumers may assume a common commercial source. Maren Wade then filed a lawsuit in California against Taylor Swift and her affiliated companies, arguing that Taylor Swfit’s branding is confusingly similar in structure, wording, and overall commercial impression to her registered mark. She is also drawing on the USPTO’s refusal of Taylor Swift’s application to support her argument of a likelihood of confusion. A judgment has not yet been reached in this case, but it serves as an important reminder of the importance of satisfying the essential elements required for IP registration. 2. Australia: Katy Perry v. Katie Perry In
July 27, 2026
Vietnam’s new E-Commerce Law, which took effect on 1 July 2026 along with its implementing Decree No. 248/2026/ND-CP (Decree 248), marks a significant development in the country’s approach to online intellectual property (IP) enforcement, reflecting a clear shift from a reactive model of intermediary liability to one that expects platforms to play a more active role in preventing infringement. From notice-and-takedown to platform responsibility The most significant change introduced by the E-Commerce Law is the transformation of the legal role of e-commerce platforms. The existing safe harbor provisions under the IP Law and the copyright notice-and-takedown regime established by Decree 17/2023/ND-CP (Decree 17) largely required intermediaries to act only after receiving notice of infringement. Once infringing content had been removed, the platform’s legal obligation was generally considered fulfilled. The new legislation adopts a fundamentally different approach. Article 17 of the E-Commerce Law requires intermediary platforms to screen information relating to goods and services before publication in order to prevent listings involving counterfeit or IP-infringing goods, and goods of unknown origin. Rather than relying exclusively on complaints from rights holders, platforms are now expected to implement preventive measures before infringing listings become publicly available. Decree 248 further requires platforms to update keyword filters based on recommendations issued by competent authorities. These filtering mechanisms are intended to prevent prohibited listings from appearing on the platform and represent a further move away from a purely complaint-driven enforcement model. The legislation also introduces Vietnam’s first statutory stay-down obligation. Under the E-Commerce Law and Decree 248, major digital platforms must maintain automated systems capable of reviewing, warning against, and removing unlawful listings while also implementing measures to prevent repeat violations, defined under Decree 248 as conduct that has previously been identified and handled by the platform, but continues to recur. This obligation addresses one
July 27, 2026
Tilleke & Gibbins’ intellectual property specialists have authored the Thailand chapter of Trade Secrets 2026 from Chambers and Partners. This global guide examines the legal frameworks governing trade secret protection, enforcement, and litigation across jurisdictions worldwide. The Thailand chapter provides a comprehensive overview of the country’s legal regime for protecting confidential business information, covering the legal framework, trade secret misappropriation, litigation procedures, remedies, and dispute resolution. Some topics covered include: Protectable trade secrets Reasonable measures to maintain secrecy Employee confidentiality Trade secret licensing Civil and criminal remedies Litigation procedures and injunctions Damages and other remedies Mediation and arbitration The guide also examines practical issues relating to safeguarding trade secrets, defending against allegations of misappropriation, and managing trade secret disputes in Thailand. Chambers and Partners’ Global Practice Guides provide in-house counsel with authoritative commentary on practical legal issues affecting business, enabling readers to compare legislation and procedures across multiple jurisdictions. The Thailand chapter of Trade Secrets 2026 is available as a PDF through the button below. The full guide can be accessed for free on the Chambers and Partners website.
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