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

March 26, 2015

Regulatory Impingement of Intellectual Property Rights in Thailand

Subscribe to Updates
T-AB: Thai-American Business, Journal of the American Chamber of Commerce in Thailand

There have recently been a number of troubling developments in tobacco and alcohol legislation and regulation in Thailand that encroach upon intellectual property (IP). Other highly regulated products, such as cosmetics, food products, and drugs, are also feeling a regulatory pinch. These regulations have impinged legitimately granted IP rights and to a greater extent, rights to property, to engage in competition, and to free speech.

To assess the extent of regulatory impingement of IP rights in Thailand, it is essential to analyze the current situation with respect to certain industries. Within that context, an overview of relief options is also presented.

The Current State of IP Rights Impingement in Thailand

Tobacco

Thailand already has some of the most stringent tobacco regulations in the world. For example, all packs of tobacco must include graphic health warnings that cover 85% of the exterior packaging (a requirement that was introduced in 2014), smoking is banned in most places, and the advertising of tobacco products is prohibited. Furthermore, Thailand’s Ministry of Public Health (MoPH) may adopt Australia’s recent plain packaging initiative.

In 2010, a draft Tobacco Consumption Control Act was introduced in Thailand that aimed to implement more restrictions on activities essential to any business involved in the tobacco industry, including pricing strategies, precluding extension of trademarks to non-tobacco goods and services, and deciding the design of product packaging (without the involvement of tobacco businesses or the Department of Intellectual Property (DIP)). 

Draft Article 40 of the Act provided additional restrictions on advertising and was also an instrument through which plain packaging initiatives could be introduced. Specifically, the MoPH would acquire wide-ranging powers to make decisions on packaging designs having “a size, color, symbol, label, including the character of the displaying of trademark, symbol, picture, and message, that are in compliance with the criteria as notified by the [MoPH].”

Draft Article 31, however, was particularly troubling, as it served as a far-reaching prohibition on advertising that went beyond the existing regulations. The new language sought to prohibit the use of importer’s/exporter’s names or trademarks and included a ban on all “advertising or marketing communications.”

Additionally, draft Article 32 went even further by prohibiting the display of tobacco product names or trademarks or tobacco product importer or manufacturer names or trademarks on any other products. Therefore, if a mark were to be used for tobacco products or if a trademark was registered in International Class 34, then that mark or trademark could not be used on any other product, and the sale of any such product would thus be restricted.

In August 2013, various interested parties obtained a preliminary injunction against the MoPH’s proposed Notification requiring an increase in Graphic Health Warnings on tobacco products. The injunction held for ten months before being overturned. A complaint remains at the Central Administrative Court. 

On November 24, 2014, the MoPH signed a slightly revised draft law, retitled the Tobacco Products Control Act, which was submitted to the Cabinet Secretary shortly thereafter. That draft is currently circulating around the various Ministries for comment. The new Act is largely identical to its 2010 predecessor, save for a slight addition to draft Section 37, which now contains the ominous statement, “the law on intellectual property shall not apply to the display of the Package under this Section.” 

This should make for an interesting dialogue between the Ministry of Commerce, where the DIP sits, and the MoPH.

Alcohol

In Thailand, the advertising, marketing, sale, labeling, and packaging of alcoholic beverages is governed by the Alcoholic Beverage Control Act 2008. 

In 2010, the MoPH published a draft notification requiring alcohol labels and packages to display graphic health warnings covering between 30-50% of the label or package. The World Trade Organization (WTO) Technical Barriers to Trade Committee was notified of the draft measure, and a number of countries raised objections and/or comments to the proposal.

In January 2014, the MoPH announced a draft notification prohibiting the use of various types of messages on alcoholic beverage labels and packages, including any message “which misleads consumers on the content of products,” and any message “using the picture of a cartoon.” 

In August 2014, a revised draft notification was issued—essentially a hybrid of the earlier two. 

On December 24, 2014, the MoPH signed a final version of the Notification in which the graphic health warning provisions had been deleted, but included revised versions of the labeling restrictions, including prohibitions on “a message which materially misleads consumers about the content of products” and “a message using cartoon images, except images which are trademarks of alcoholic beverages which have been legitimately registered prior to enforcement of this Notification.” Here, it should be noted that the Trademark Act does recognize unregistered marks, so again, there is an attempt by the MoPH to override existing Thai trademark law which, like international trademark law, fully recognizes unregistered trademarks.     

Unless successfully challenged, the Notification comes into force 90 days after its publication in the Government Gazette.

Other Industries

The introduction of specific regulations in the cosmetic, food products, medical devices, and pediatric nutrition industries has undermined rights associated with trademarks. For instance, words such as BIO, NANO, or 24K, which are commonly registered as trademarks, cannot be used in connection with cosmetic products and words such as “slim,” “lean,” “white,” or images depicting thinness or intelligence are prohibited on food unless it is proven that such characteristics or ingredients exist in the product formula. 

Although both the DIP and the Food and Drug Administration share the common objective to prevent consumers from being misled, the DIP focuses on whether the trademark is distinctive and identifies the source of the goods or services, whereas the Food and Drug Administration focuses on the intent behind the product name. There is currently no linkage between these two agencies, unlike in many other nations.     

Possible National Grounds for Challenging Regulatory Impingement of IP

Constitutional Issues

The 2007 Constitution protects property and grants people the liberties to engage in enterprise and to undertake fair and free competition through Section 43. The current interim constitution, adopted last year, does not contain an analogous provision covering these principles. However, according to Sections 4 and 5 of the interim constitution, these rights must be protected as long as they are not inconsistent with the interim constitution.

Sections 41 and 86 of the 2007 Constitution provides protection for individual property and intellectual property respectively. 

Thai laws and regulations that prevent the full enjoyment of trademark rights may conflict with Section 29, as it imposes the requirements of necessity and proportionality on the restrictions flowing from the impinging regulation.

Administrative Court

Encroaching legislation can be challenged locally in Thailand by filing a complaint in the Administrative Court on such grounds as:

  • the issuance of the impinging regulation amounts to an ultra vires act;
  • incompatibility with national trademark law, constitutional rights, and international treaty provisions;
  • failure to follow due process, including consultation and regulatory impact assessment; and
  • the act or rule is unnecessary and disproportionate.

Trademark Arguments – Value and a Right to Use

Trademarks provide substantial benefits to their owners in terms of asset value, licensing value, assignment value, and overall goodwill. Importantly, trademarks differentiate the goods of one business from the goods of others, thereby conferring an important valuable benefit to Thai consumers.

By registering a trademark, a trademark owner has obtained the exclusive and positive rights to use and license the use of the trademark in Thailand as per Section 44 of the Trademark Act.

As in any country, trademark owners face a risk that their trademarks may be cancelled if they are not used for a prescribed period of time (in Thailand, this is three years). Therefore, if a trademark is declared unusable on a good or service by way of a regulatory rule, then after three years of such inability to use, it can be stricken from the Trademark Registry, leaving it vulnerable to being re-registered by a bad faith third party or leaving it open to use by counterfeiters without any means of stopping this by the former owner. 

Challenging Impinging Regulations under Trade Agreements

Continued promulgation of rules and regulations that defeat IP would question Thailand’s obligations under various international treaties, including the World Trade Organization Agreement on Trade-Related Aspects of Intellectual Property Rights (TRIPS). Specifically, Article 20 prohibits unjustifiable encumbrances on the use of a trademark in the course of trade.

Currently, Thailand is not a party to Trans-Pacific Partnership (TPP) negotiations. If Thailand joins this trade pact in the future, the Investor-State Dispute Settlement (ISDS) provisions, which are believed to be set out in the TPP Investment Chapter, could be invoked by IP owners who see their rights encroached upon by authorities as a means to challenge impinging regulations.

Approach

Thai authorities need to ensure that any regulatory measures introduced do not infringe upon constitutional rights, undermine IP protection, or violate international trade obligations. It will be an interesting period of time to observe whether any further regulatory encroachments will be approved by the government and, if so, what legal challenges IP owners may be able to make against these.

Download Full Article
Related Professionals

Practices

Intellectual Property

Location

RELATED INSIGHTS​ 

December 17, 2025
Vietnam’s National Assembly approved wide-ranging amendments to the Intellectual Property (IP) Law on December 10, 2025, marking one of the most significant overhauls of the country’s IP regime in recent years. The changes, which supplement and refine existing provisions, are designed to align Vietnam’s framework more closely with international standards while addressing practical challenges faced by rights holders and practitioners. The amendments will come into force on April 1, 2026. The most notable changes are detailed below. Recognition of partial and nonphysical industrial designs: Industrial design protection has been broadened to cover partial designs and nonphysical forms (class 32), explicitly extending rights to parts of products that are not independently circulated as well as digital and intangible product appearances. The law clarifies that the external appearances of nonphysical products are protected industrial designs, and circulation of digital copies of any part of that appearance will be treated as an act of using the industrial design. The provision on the industrial applicability of industrial designs has also been amended accordingly to include the uniform reproduction of nonphysical products in cyberspace. Resolving conflicts between overlapping rights: The IP Law provides a safeguard against conflicts when a single subject matter is protected by multiple IP rights. Where overlapping rights exist, the later-arising right will be terminated if its exercise interferes with the normal exploitation of an earlier right. The decision to terminate such a later right rests with the court. Use of published data for AI training: Organizations and individuals may use lawfully published and publicly accessible documents and data for scientific research, testing, and AI system training. Such use must not unreasonably prejudice the rights or legitimate interests of authors or IP rights holders. Where the documents and data fall under copyright or related rights protection, their use must also comply
Read More
December 5, 2025
One morning, a California-based company mapping its Southeast Asia rollout opened an unexpected cease-and-desist letter from a Vietnamese IP firm. To the company’s surprise, the letter asserted that a local client already owned the company’s brand in Vietnam and threatened legal action. This is not an isolated incident. In another recent matter in the sports industry, a squatter demanded at least USD 48,000 from our client to “resolve” a similar conflict. For brands entering Vietnam or expanding distribution there, these tactics can create acute risk at precisely the point at which market momentum is building. Vietnam’s rapid economic growth and deepening integration into global trade have made it an increasingly attractive destination for multinational brands. Those same dynamics have intensified a longstanding issue: trademark squatting. Vietnam has modernized its IP framework over the past decade, but its strict first-to-file trademark system continues to incentivize opportunistic filings by parties with no legitimate interest in a mark. As more foreign brands build their reputation abroad before turning to Vietnam, squatters remain alert to timing gaps and enforcement frictions. The First-to-File System: Advantages and Vulnerabilities Vietnam adheres closely to the first-to-file principle under its Law on Intellectual Property. In practice, exclusive trademark rights belong to whoever submits the earliest valid application to the Vietnam Intellectual Property Office, regardless of prior use in Vietnam. This approach offers administrative clarity and reduces evidentiary burdens compared to use-based jurisdictions. Yet it also creates fertile conditions for squatting. Bad-faith actors regularly monitor foreign markets, identify brands gaining traction, and move quickly to register those marks domestically, often long before the genuine owner enters the market or prioritizes local filings. By the time the true brand seeks protection, the squatter’s application (or registration) stands as a legal obstacle, pushing businesses toward costly oppositions, cancellations, or uncomfortable negotiations
Read More
November 26, 2025
On November 21, 2025, Myanmar’s Ministry of Commerce (MOC) issued Notification No. 103/2025 promulgating the Geographical Indication Rules (GI Rules), establishing a comprehensive framework for the registration and administration of geographical indications (GI), which are primarily governed by the Trademark Law of 2019. On the same day, the MOC released Notification No. 104/2025 specifying the required forms for GI-related matters. The GI Rules establish a comprehensive set of procedures for the entire GI application process, including filing applications, oppositions, cancellations, and invalidations, and appointing a local representative for GI-related matters. Under the Trademark Law and the GI Rules, domestic and foreign legal entities (organizations) that formally represent a defined group of stakeholders (such as producers or manufacturers of natural products or resources, agricultural products, handicrafts, or industrial products) and other competent authorities from government departments are eligible to apply for GI registration with the Intellectual Property Department (IPD) in Myanmar. Application A GI application can be submitted in either English or Myanmar language electronically, in person, or via post. Foreign applicants seeking to register a GI in Myanmar are required to submit a copy of the registration certificate from their country of origin with the GI application. This certificate must explicitly state the GI name of the protected product. Notably, foreign applicants are mandated to appoint a local representative in Myanmar to act on their behalf for GI-related matters with the IPD and appeal-related matters with the IP Agency. The form for appointing the local representative must be duly notarized in the applicant’s home country to ensure its legal validity and acceptance in accordance with the GI Rules. Application for Use of GI Logo Pursuant to the GI Rules, any interested individual, local or foreign, may submit an application to the IPD for authorization to use the GI logo,
Read More
November 21, 2025
Tilleke & Gibbins has contributed the Thailand chapter to Asia IP’s ASEAN Guide to IP Protection 2025, an annual reference covering key developments and practical considerations for intellectual property systems across Southeast Asia. The chapter offers an overview of Thailand’s current legal framework for the protection of trademarks, patents, industrial designs, and copyrights. It summarizes registration requirements, recent regulatory updates, and procedural considerations relevant to rights holders and practitioners. The chapter offers actionable insights for rights holders at every stage of the IP lifecycle and addresses practical strategies for managing portfolios, anticipating enforcement challenges, and maximizing the value of IP assets. The authors also highlight recent trends and developments in Thai IP law, ensuring that readers are equipped with the latest knowledge to inform their decisions. The complete Thailand chapter can be downloaded through the button below, and the chapter is also available on the Asia IP website.
Read More