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

August 25, 2016

Suppression of Intellectual Property Infringement Subcommittee

Subscribe to Updates
Informed Counsel

Thailand 4.0 is the next step in Thailand’s evolution, according to Prime Minister Prayuth Chan-o-cha. Thailand 4.0, an economic model that aims to develop Thailand into a valued-based economy, would bring about a number of changes. For example, traditional methods of farming would gradually be replaced by “precision agriculture,” also known as “smart farming;” SMEs would develop into “smart enterprises” with capabilities to process and analyze big data; and services would advance to offer “high-value services.” To facilitate this, the government embarked on a sortie of economic reform, and set up a 20-year national strategy which includes strategy related to intellectual property.

In order to comply with the government’s national strategy, the Department of Intellectual Property (DIP) has drafted an IP Roadmap that sets out its long-term operations, from 2016 to 2036. The IP Roadmap covers the following main issues: (1) creation of IP; (2) utilization of IP in business; (3) protection of IP; (4) enforcement of IP; and (5) promotion  of protection for geographical indications.

Earlier this year, the Prime Minister set up the Suppression of Intellectual Property Infringement Subcommittee to solve issues on preventing IP infringement, reduce problems for IP rights holders, increase IP protection in accordance with international standards, and build Thailand’s image as an IP-friendly country.

As a result of this new subcommittee being established, the National Intellectual Property Center for Enforcement, established by the DIP in 2013, was disbanded. During its operation, it promoted cooperation among the 25 government agencies responsible for enforcing IP rights in significant cases, such as cases involving organized and transnational criminals.

The new subcommittee is tasked with promoting cooperation among 16 government agencies and individuals, as follows:

  • Deputy Prime Minister Prawit Wongsuwan
  • Minister of Commerce or Assigned Deputy Minister of Commerce
  • Permanent Secretary Ministry of Commerce
  • Permanent Secretary Ministry of Information and Communication Technology
  • Commander in Chief, Royal Thai Army
  • Secretary of Internal Security Operations Command
  • Secretary of Food and Drug Committee
  • Attorney General of the DIP and International Trade
  • Director General of the Customs Department
  • Director General of the Department of Special Investigation
  • Secretary of the Prevention and Suppression of Money Laundering Committee
  • Secretary of the National Broadcasting, Television, and Telecommunications Committee
  • Commissioner-General, Royal Thai Police
  • Assigned Deputy Commissioner-General, Royal Thai Police
  • Director General of the DIP
  • Deputy Commissioner-General of the Police Strategy Division Office

In addition, the subcommittee has responsibilities to frame the structure and timelines of the National IP Suppression operational plan, and ensure that it complies with the plan; direct, control, accelerate, examine, follow up, and evaluate governmental operational parts, as well as other organizations involved in IP suppression; appoint a working group to be responsible for certain matters or assign government sectors, officers, employees, or officials to proceed as instructed; invite experts, government  officers or employees, or involved persons to declare or give information, facts and opinions, and documents or evidence; distribute news and promote IP suppression operations; periodically report performance results to the President of the subcommittee and Cabinet; and proceed with assignments as instructed by the National IP Policy Committee.

These efforts to strengthen the suppression of IP infringement and improve the overall environment for IP rights represent an important step as Thailand develops into a valued-based economy. With proper planning and execution, Thailand 4.0 may not be far off.

Download Full Article
Related Professionals

Practices

Intellectual Property

Location

RELATED INSIGHTS​ 

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
Read More
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
Read More
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
Read More
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.
Read More