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 6, 2019

Strategic IP Training in Targeted Southeast Asian Countries

Informed Counsel

As the issue of counterfeiting continues to evolve, savvy brand owners are taking innovative approaches to intellectual property protection to meet their shifting needs. One such approach aims to resolve a key issue faced by brand owners: the variable effectiveness of government officials in taking action against counterfeits. Companies face understandable frustration when they perceive that different government agencies or officials may be less effective in enforcing the law, and they too often feel as though this issue is outside of their control. But forward-thinking companies can help to change this. By providing educational instruction to the frontline officers and authorities that are directly involved in combatting counterfeiting, brand owners can help to improve the capabilities of the relevant officials, while also building an excellent relationship with the key agencies involved in the process.

Every year we arrange numerous training events for authorities across the region, in collaboration with leading brand owners, designing each session to include new and interesting issues that develop officers’ understanding of the problems that brand owners face. In creating these curricula, we work with our clients, and draw on our extensive experience in the field, to focus intensively on the relevant issues. In particular, we identify and target key details relating to product identification and characteristics that need unusually close attention, or that tend to be overlooked.

Training Government Stakeholders Across Southeast Asia   

During the past three years, Tilleke & Gibbins has arranged 18 such events attended by more than 1,200 officials from Cambodia, Laos, Myanmar, Thailand, and Vietnam. Participants not only included the officers directly involved with intellectual property enforcement, but also other relevant government authorities tasked with overseeing and implementing regulations under similar laws, such as health and regulatory bodies responsible for the administration of food and drugs.   

In 2018 alone, Tilleke & Gibbins, in collaboration with participating brands, cohosted several training events attended by authorities on the front line of counterfeit prevention in Southeast Asia, as detailed in the table below.

Government Authority Training Sessions – 2018

A lasting and positive outcome of these multilateral events has been the building and strengthening of truly collaborative relationships among the customs officers from the participating countries—an invaluable commodity in countries that share land borders. Building on the experience gained and relationships built in these sessions, in December 2018, the Royal Thai Customs Department, in collaboration with Tilleke & Gibbins and participating brands, cohosted a training event for 29 specially selected customs officers from Cambodia, Laos, Myanmar, Vietnam, and Thailand (collectively known as CLMVT). This training was part of “The Workshop on Trade Facilitation Agreement and Intellectual Property Rights for CLMVT,” which was organized by the Customs Academy and the Human Resources Management Bureau of the Royal Thai Customs Department. The presentations were conducted by representatives of the participating brand owners and by lawyers from Tilleke & Gibbins.

Working with Brand Owners
    In addition, officials are able to use these events to interact directly with brand owners proactively involved in anticounterfeiting activities. Representatives from several famous companies also attend each training event, representing diverse industries, including machinery, apparel, consumer goods, cosmetics, and other types of products, each of which is particularly vulnerable to counterfeiting in these strategic markets. Strong company participation provides expert insights related to their respective business fields, and even into specific examples of their products, thanks to a “mobile museum” of genuine and fake goods that we provide as a practical learning tool.     

Each participating brand is fully engaged with the officers during the training sessions, with brand representatives on hand to help attendees differentiate between the genuine brands and counterfeit goods, and to provide effective recognition techniques when inspecting them. As brands regularly launch new products, models, packaging designs, and other developments, it can be difficult for authorities—even those well-trained in specific product details—to stay abreast of the distinguishing features of a brand’s genuine products. This kind of involvement by brands is therefore essential, and the exchange of experiences between government agencies and the private sector can be the key to a sustainable effort to prevent the spread of counterfeits.

Impact   

The participants at these events are generally very engaged and respond to the speakers with interest and enthusiasm, inevitably leading to a lively question-and-answer session on product identification between the authorities, brand owners, and our lawyers. More importantly, the sessions provide a cooperative and transparent platform for the authorities and decision-makers from numerous Southeast Asian countries not only to share their experiences, but also to exchange information about the manufacturing sources and transportation routes of infringing goods.    

With the cooperation of the participating brands, the authorities are able to use these events to enhance their skills and judgment when conducting an initial inspection of any suspect goods, as well as develop a productive working relationship with the participating brand representatives to help with ongoing enforcement measures.    

During the training events we have held over many years, we have also built a strong, enduring, and trusted relationship with the intellectual property enforcement authorities, and we will continue to encourage and support them. We believe that the success of these training events will affect the scope of intellectual property protection in Southeast Asian countries in a positive manner for years to come.

RELATED INSIGHTS​ 

August 20, 2026
As part of its membership in Lex Mundi, Tilleke & Gibbins has released the latest edition of its Guide to Doing Business in Thailand, providing an overview of the legal, regulatory, and commercial considerations for companies establishing or expanding operations in Thailand. The 2026 edition offers practical insight into the country’s business environment, investment framework, and operational requirements. The guide covers a wide range of topics relevant to foreign and domestic investors, including: Investment incentives and promotion schemes Financial facilities and banking regulations Exchange controls and money transfers Import and export regulations Business structures and incorporation options Requirements for establishing a business Operational and compliance considerations Business cessation and insolvency procedures Employment and labor laws Taxation Immigration and visa requirements Prepared by Tilleke & Gibbins lawyers across multiple practice areas, the publication outlines key aspects of doing business in Thailand, including foreign investment restrictions, regulatory compliance obligations, corporate structures, employment requirements, and recent legal and economic developments affecting investors. The publication forms part of Lex Mundi’s Country Guides series, a global collection of jurisdiction-specific reference materials prepared by member firms around the world. Together, these guides help companies evaluate opportunities, compare regulatory environments, and plan international business activities across multiple markets. The full Guide to Doing Business in Thailand 2026 is available through the button below.
August 13, 2026
Modern agricultural machinery is no longer purely mechanical but instead technology dependent. Modern tractors, harvesters, and other farm equipment increasingly incorporate embedded software, electronic control units, sensors, and digital diagnostic systems. While such technologies enhance efficiency, productivity, and precision farming, they also affect the manner of equipment repair and maintenance. As a result, farmers and independent repair providers may have little practical choice but to rely on authorized dealers, even for routine maintenance and repairs. Section 36 of Thailand’s Patent Act reflects the principle that the authorized sale of a patented invention usually exhausts the exclusive right of the patent owner over the specific product. This means that upon legal sale of the patented product, it can typically be used or resold without further authorization from the patent holder. This principle is relatively straightforward when applied to traditional mechanical equipment. Ownership of a machine ordinarily carries with it the practical ability to diagnose faults, replace worn parts, and restore the equipment to working order. Modern agricultural machinery, however, increasingly depends on embedded software, proprietary diagnostic systems, firmware updates, and other digital resources that may remain under the control of the manufacturer or patent holder. This tension lies within the “right to repair” debate. In the United States, on July 8, 2026, the Federal Trade Commission and five states announced a settlement with Deere & Company resolving allegations that Deere had unlawfully restricted farmers’ and independent repair providers’ ability to repair their equipment. Under the terms of the settlement, for the next ten years, Deere must provide repair resources, including software capabilities, on terms equivalent to those provided to authorized dealers. The Deere settlement highlights that the nature of ownership is changing, but legal concepts have not kept pace. Traditional patent-law concepts, including patent exhaustion, were developed with physical products
August 10, 2026
Thailand has finalized its social media KYC (“know your customer”) rules under Notification of the Electronic Transactions Commission on Measures to Prevent Technological Crimes for Social Media Service Providers (No. 2), which was published in the Government Gazette on May 5, 2026, and will take effect on November 1, 2026. While an early draft of the notification proposed requiring social media platforms to arrange identification of every user account, the final notification is significantly more targeted, focusing on paid online advertising and advertiser identity verification. Though the regulatory initiative primarily aims to combat online fraud and technology-related crimes, it also has important consequences for intellectual property enforcement, because the verified platform records that will be generated under the new requirements can help IP rights holders to identify anonymous online infringers. Key Regulatory Mandates The notification requires social media service providers to verify the identity of advertisers before their paid advertisements are published and disseminated in Thailand through social media, regardless of whether the advertising fees come from the advertisers or third parties. Verification of an advertiser is valid for one year, after which verification would have to be performed again before the platform could publish additional paid advertisements from the advertiser. Permitted verification methods are specified under the notification. A platform may verify an advertiser by checking identity evidence and confirming the connection between the advertiser and that identity evidence, with the notification giving facial comparison against certain government-issued identity documents as an example. Alternatively, platforms may verify advertisers through a digital identity verification and authentication system with an identity-proofing assurance level not lower than the level prescribed by Thailand’s Electronic Transactions Commission. The notification further requires platforms to retain only the advertiser’s information necessary to identify the advertiser, beginning from the start of the advertising activity and for
August 6, 2026
Introduction: A Trademark Paradox in Sustainable Packaging Walk into any Thai supermarket, and the label-free water bottle is no longer a novelty. Thailand’s packaging market, valued at approximately USD 15.68 billion in 2025, is shifting toward minimalist, plastic-light designs as ESG pressures reshape how brands present their products. The country generated roughly 5.68 million tons of plastic waste in 2021, with a recycling rate of only 19 percent, and regulators are now considering rules that would allow label-free bottled water relying on embossing, laser printing, or QR codes instead of wrap-around labels. As packaging itself becomes the brand identifier, a paradox emerges: designs built to say the least often struggle hardest for protection under Thai intellectual property law. The Trademark Barrier: When Shape Is Not Enough Section 7, paragraph 2(10) of the Thai Trademark Act deems a shape distinctive only if it is not the natural form of the goods, is not necessary to achieve a technical result, and does not add value to the goods. The Department of Intellectual Property’s 2022 examination guidelines apply this test conservatively, as the following examples illustrate. A plain water bottle relying on subtle contours to signal its brand is typically read as just another bottle, not a source identifier. Acquired distinctiveness offers a theoretical escape route, but it demands extensive evidence of sales, advertising, and consumer recognition—an especially heavy burden for new entrants whose minimalist packaging has not yet achieved market prominence. The result is a structural bias against precisely the design innovation that sustainability goals are meant to encourage. Design Patents: A Partial, Imperfect Substitute Design patent protection, covering a product’s shape, configuration, or ornamentation, appears to offer an alternative route. In practice, it is constrained by the same forces driving the minimalist trend. Because many brands converge on similar solutions—clear