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​ 

June 16, 2026
Since the implementation of the Trademark Law 2019 on April 1, 2023, Myanmar has operated under a modern first-to-file trademark system that brings its registration framework closer to international practice. As the new regime continues to develop in practice, applicants are increasingly required to navigate formal examination requirements, substantive objections, and procedural deadlines with greater precision. This article provides a high-level review of the trademark examination process in Myanmar, focusing on the principal stages from initial review to approval, the types of objections commonly raised by the Intellectual Property Department (IPD), and the key considerations for responding effectively. A clear understanding of these issues is essential for applicants seeking to secure registration efficiently and to mitigate avoidable delays or refusals. Examination Process: Key Stages Trademark applications filed with the IPD undergo two stages of review. Formality Examination The IPD first verifies compliance with procedural requirements, including: Correct Nice Classification Clear mark representation Accurate applicant details Clearly defined goods or services Representative details, if the application is filed by a representative Other formality requirements cover translation and transliteration of any non-English or non-Myanmar elements in the mark, color claim details, applicable disclaimers, and payment of official fees. Deficiencies result in an office action requiring correction within 30 days, which may be extended upon request. Registrability Examination The IPD also assesses registrability. A mark may be refused if it: Lacks distinctiveness Is descriptive or generic Misleads the public or violates public order/morality Contains prohibited state symbols Only compliant applications proceed to publication. Responding to Office Actions Applicants must respond within 30 days of notification from the IPD. Depending on the nature of the objection, strategies may include submitting legal arguments for distinctiveness, providing evidence of acquired distinctiveness, filing appropriate disclaimers, clarifying descriptions such as color claims, or amending the listed goods
Read More
June 15, 2026
The surge in AI development has led to a desperate demand for large, high-quality training data. However, real-world data can be expensive to collect, difficult to access, and often subject to strict privacy and regulatory constraints. Synthetic data, which consists of artificially generated records that replicate the statistical properties of real-world data without reproducing specific individuals’ information, provides an appealing solution by generating artificial datasets at scale without relying on identifiable personal information. It combines speed, cost efficiency, and regulatory compliance, making it a sensible alternative for organizations seeking to reduce risks while maintaining data utility. When properly anonymized, synthetic datasets may fall outside the scope of laws such as the EU’s General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR) or Thailand’s Personal Data Protection Act (PDPA), reducing compliance burdens while still supporting high-quality model training. However, relying on synthetic data without rigorous legal due diligence could be a strategic mistake. It replaces one set of known risks (scraping, direct privacy liability) with a new set of complex liabilities. The narrative that synthetic data is a “silver bullet” for privacy and IP compliance is dangerous and could be misleading. While synthetic data addresses data scarcity, it also introduces new legal uncertainties. Legal counsel should anticipate downstream risks arising from compromised data sources. Models trained on unlawfully obtained data may need to be decommissioned, even if their outputs appear lawful. What is synthetic data? Synthetic data refers to artificially generated information created using AI techniques such as deep learning and generative models. Instead of copying real records, it reproduces the statistical patterns and relationships found in the original dataset. Synthetic data generally falls into three categories: Fully synthetic data – Entirely new data points generated from learned patterns. The model studies the structure of the original data and produces records that resemble real-world
Read More
June 10, 2026
In March 2026, the Intellectual Property Office of Vietnam (IP Office) issued a decision refusing a trademark application after considering an opposition based primarily on copyright grounds. The outcome is noteworthy because the foreign brand owner had neither trademark registrations nor applications in Vietnam at the time the opposition was filed, and the IP Office has historically applied a stringent approach to oppositions relying on copyright. The Opposition Maurten is a well-known Swedish sports nutrition brand recognized globally for its innovative hydrogel technology, which is designed to help endurance athletes fuel more effectively without gastrointestinal discomfort. The brand’s distinctive logo is characterized by clean lines and a bold black-and-white color scheme, and has long been associated with the company’s performance products. The brand’s logo is displayed above. An identical mark was filed for registration by a Vietnamese trademark squatter. In 2023, a Vietnamese individual filed an application for registration of an identical mark (Application No. 4-2023-38668), a practice commonly observed in Vietnam as trademark squatting. The brand owner engaged Tilleke & Gibbins to assist with strategy and filing an opposition to the mark. At the time, Maurten had no trademark rights or meaningful use in Vietnam, and global marketing data showed only modest figures without any local presence. Thus, to convince the IP Office to refuse the squatter’s application, instead of relying on trademark rights or use evidence, the opposition strategy centered on the copyright protection of the logo itself, as copyright arises automatically in Vietnam upon creation of the work and does not require registration. (It is worth noting, however, that the IP Office has traditionally been cautious in accepting copyright as a basis for refusing trademark applications.) On September 24, 2024, an opposition was filed on three main grounds: confusing similarity, copyright infringement of the artistic work,
Read More
June 10, 2026
For multinational franchisors operating in Thailand, a key risk after franchise termination is that former outlets may continue operating in ways that could easily mislead consumers into believing they remain within the authorized network. To justify such operations, former franchisees often argue that the termination was invalid or ineffective. As a result, these cases are often treated as contractual disputes, making it difficult for franchisors to obtain injunctive relief before a final judgment confirms that the termination was lawful. Franchisors face significant commercial and reputational harm during lengthy proceedings, including consumer confusion, disruption to franchise restructuring, and damage to brand reputation and customer trust. In an encouraging development, the Thai court in a 2025 case responded to the problem of unauthorized post-termination franchise operations by granting interim relief, recognizing broader brand and consumer harm, and awarding substantial damages, highlighting a successful litigation strategy of framing the dispute not merely as a contractual termination issue but as trademark infringement causing ongoing commercial injury. The Subway Case From December 2024 to mid-2025, an unauthorized “Subway®” franchise operation in Thailand attracted substantial public and media attention. Reports and online discussions about unauthorized Subway® stores circulated widely after complaints arose about food quality and customer experience at certain outlets that were allegedly operating after their franchise rights had expired. Because these stores continued to use Subway® trademarks, trade dress, and overall commercial appearance, many consumers were unable to distinguish them from authorized operations, resulting in reputational risks and customer confusion that affected the franchisor’s brand and franchise system in Thailand. Subway treated this matter with the utmost seriousness and moved promptly to protect its brand, franchise system, and customers. It filed a civil action with the IP&IT Court seeking a permanent injunction and damages. During the proceedings, the court granted a preliminary injunction
Read More