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

November 7, 2012

Thai Cabinet Approves Draft Amendments to Copyright Act

Informed Counsel

The current Copyright Act B.E. 2537 (1994) has been in force for 18 years. Given the rapid technological change in the last two decades, copyright owners and practitioners widely agree that it is necessary to update the existing legislative framework to account for the rise of the internet.

A new draft Copyright Act, initially developed by the Ministry of Commerce, was approved by the Cabinet on October 9, 2012. Next, the current draft of the Copyright Bill will be forwarded to the House of Representatives and then to the Senate for further consideration and approval before becoming law.

Several steps remain in the legislative process, and it is unlikely that the Bill will pass into law soon. Nevertheless, Cabinet approval marks an important step forward for this legislation, and thus intellectual property rights owners should be aware of the key provisions currently included in the Bill.

Interim Injunctive Relief

Under the proposed amendments, copyright owners will be allowed to petition the court for interim injunctive relief to block copyright infringement over the internet via a service provider’s computer system.

Rights Management Information

Rights management information (RMI) is, essentially, ownership information that has been affixed to the copyright work. Under the proposed amendments, it would be considered infringement to delete or modify RMI, if the person making the deletion or modification is aware that such act may induce, cause, facilitate, or conceal infringement of a copyright or performer’s rights. Further, the Bill holds that it is an offense to import or order the import of a copyright work with deleted or modified RMI for public distribution.

The Bill provides exceptions to RMI infringement if the deletion or modification is made by (1) an authorized official to enforce the law in order to protect the nation or national security; (2) an educational institution, archive, library, or organization that broadcasts to the public for non-profit purposes; or (3) making available a copyright work or its copy, after the RMI has been deleted or modified by any organization listed under the second exemption.

Technological Protection Measures

Technological protection measures are defined in the Bill as “any technology designed to prevent reproduction or to control access to a copyrighted work or a recording of a performance…” This definition covers two types of measures: (1) access control technological protection measures; and (2) copy control technological protection measures.

The avoidance or circumvention of these measures will become illegal under the new law, if the person avoiding or circumventing the measures is aware that such action may induce or cause copyright infringement. Again, this infringement is subject to certain exceptions, such as national security.

Exceptions to Copyright Infringement

As currently drafted, the new Copyright Bill exempts the following three acts from copyright infringement:

  • Legal distribution of the original or a copy of a copyright work which is lawfully obtained from its owner.
  • Reproduction in a computer system of a copyright work that is made or obtained lawfully, where it is necessary    to use such reproduction to enable a component of a computer system or the transfer process of a copyright work via a computer system to work normally.
  • A service provider who does not control, initiate, or order the committing of copyright infringement which is found on the service provider’s computer system. Additionally, if the service provider complies with a court order to cease the infringing act or remove the infringing work from its computer system, the service provider will not be liable for the alleged infringing act that has been committed prior to the court order. The service provider is also not liable for any damages caused by any act done in compliance with the court order.

Performer’s Rights and Rights of Performer’s Heir

Under the Bill, a performer has the right to identify himself or herself as a performer and to prohibit an assignee or any other person from distorting, shortening, adapting, or doing any other action to his or her performance that is prejudicial to the reputation or dignity of       the performer. The performer’s heir can enforce the performer’s rights throughout the term of copyright protection, unless otherwise agreed in writing.

Double Penalty

When an infringer commits copyright infringement intentionally or with the intent to have the copyright work or a performer’s rights be widely accessible to the public, the Bill empowers the court to order payment of compensation in an amount not exceeding double the amount of damages incurred as a result of the infringement.

Confiscation of Copyright-Infringing Goods

Under the Bill, the court can order confiscation or destruction, at the infringer’s expense, of all of the articles made or imported into Thailand that infringe a copyright or performers’ rights, as well as items used for committing an offense.

A Step Forward

Taken together, these proposed amendments to the   Copyright Act should provide an important step forward for Thai copyright law. The provisions, as currently drafted, recognize many of the important challenges copyright owners face in the digital age, clarify when exceptions to infringement may exist, and provide new guidance on enforcement through the courts. Copyright owners will therefore be closely monitoring the progress of the Bill through the Thai Parliament, as it moves toward becoming law.

RELATED INSIGHTS​ 

July 9, 2026
Recycling, upcycling, and refill-packaging models are now widely promoted as ways to reduce waste, lower carbon emissions, and respond to consumer demand for sustainable products. However, complications arise when these environmentally driven trends intersect with intellectual property law—particularly where reused or altered packaging continues to display third parties’ registered trademarks. Adding to this complexity, Thailand’s draft Sustainable Packaging Management Act aims to introduce new environmental compliance obligations that businesses must navigate alongside existing trademark concerns. Recycling and upcycling packaging may infringe trademark rights, especially in cases not protected by the first-sale doctrine—the principle that a trademark owner’s rights over a particular mark-bearing product end once the owner first sells it. Furthermore, even refill packaging carries legal risk due to specific statutory prohibitions under Thai law. Compounding these challenges, the draft Sustainable Packaging Management Act will impose extended producer responsibility (EPR) obligations on manufacturers and brand owners, requiring them to manage packaging throughout its lifecycle. These overlapping legal frameworks could deter manufacturers from pursuing ESG-aligned business models unless businesses understand how to navigate both trademark and environmental requirements. Under Thai law, this issue remains uncertain because the Trademark Act does not expressly codify the first sale doctrine, also known as the exhaustion of trademark rights. Generally, this doctrine provides that once a trademark owner has lawfully sold goods bearing its trademark, the owner’s right to control further resale of those particular goods is exhausted. The rationale is that the owner has already received commercial benefit from the first authorized sale; therefore, the purchaser should be free to resell or otherwise dispose of the goods. Although the doctrine is not expressly codified in the Trademark Act, Thai courts have recognized it in relation to genuine goods and parallel imports, as seen in a Supreme Court Judgment No. 2817/2543 in which the
July 6, 2026
Indonesia’s regulation on reporting online intellectual property (IP) infringement provides comprehensive procedural guidance for IP rights holders and their licensees in reporting online infringement complaints. Issued in December 2025 by the Ministry of Law as Regulation No. 47 of 2025 regarding Handling of Intellectual Property Infringement Reports in Electronic Systems, this regulation covers all types of IP rights. It also specifies documentation when reporting infringement, and lays out the procedures for examination, verification, and enforcement actions. Submission of Complaints Complainants may submit reports through the online system of the Directorate General of Intellectual Property (DGIP) or in person at the DGIP office. Complaints may also be filed through an authorized proxy. Under the regulation, complainants are required to provide the following information and documents: Personal details of the complainant; Brief description of the protected work or subject matter (i.e., type of IP and name or address of the infringing website, portal, account, or application, or a link to the location of the infringing content); Complete description of the alleged infringement; Certificate of registration or recordal of the relevant IP; Recordal of IP license agreement, if any; and Other supporting evidence. Verification and Examination Process Upon receiving a complaint, the responsible formality officer may request clarification or additional supporting documents. In the latter case, the complainant must then submit the necessary administrative documents within 14 days of the notification date. Once the documentation is deemed complete and sufficient, the case will be formally registered. Subsequently, the DGIP will establish a verification team to handle online IP violations, which will include the Civil Servant Investigator (PPNS), the Ministry of Communication and Digital Affairs, experts with relevant expertise in IP, and representatives from related associations such as AVISI (Indonesian Video Streaming Association). After examining the report, the team will prepare the Minutes
June 30, 2026
Customs recordation is an enforcement mechanism in Myanmar that enables intellectual property (IP) rights holders to seek prevention of the cross-border movement of infringing goods. The enactment of Myanmar’s IP laws in 2019 has enabled customs recordation for registered marks and copyrights under the Trademark Law 2019 and the Copyright Law 2019. By contrast, the Patent Law 2019 and the Industrial Design Law 2019 do not provide a practical framework for customs recordation, and accordingly such rights are not subject to the customs recordation regime. Under the Trademark Law 2019, rights holders may apply for customs recordation and may also ask the Customs Department to suspend the release of goods suspected of bearing counterfeit marks. Likewise, the Copyright Law 2019 allows for customs intervention in relation to pirated works. These provisions reflect Myanmar’s gradual alignment with international standards on border measures, although the implementation framework remains at a relatively early stage of development. Customs Recordation Pursuant to the Trademark Law 2019 and the Copyright Law 2019, the relevant authorities have issued customs rules concerning the protection of registered marks and copyrights. In practice, the process generally begins with the submission of an application to the Customs Department together with supporting documentation. This typically includes proof of registration in Myanmar; details of the rights holder, applicant, and any authorized representative; and a comprehensive description of the genuine goods. Product identification materials—such as photographs, packaging samples, and distinguishing features—are particularly important in helping customs officers identify suspected infringing goods. A recordation remains valid for two years from the date of approval. It may be renewed for additional two-year terms, provided that the renewal application is filed within the thirty days prior to expiry for marks and up to thirty days in advance of the expiry date for copyrights, in accordance with
June 24, 2026
Patent enablement requirements are provided under Article 102 of Vietnam’s Law on Intellectual Property (IP Law). In particular, a patent specification must “fully and clearly disclose the nature of the invention to such an extent that, based on the specification, a person having ordinary skill in the relevant art can implement the invention.” In pharmaceutical and biotechnology patents, this requirement is more complicated and subject to more rigorous assessment. The Patent Examination Guidelines (Guidelines) of the Intellectual Property Office of Vietnam (IP Office) were amended in March 2026 to introduce Annexes III and IV for the pharmaceutical and biotechnology sectors, in which Annex III provides detailed guidelines on the assessment of specification requirements. These amendments were made under a project for strengthening capacity in industrial property examination between the Japan International Cooperation Agency (JICA) and the IP Office. Annex III provides detailed instructions on how examiners assess enablement in a pharmaceutical or biotechnology application, and offers examples of acceptable and unacceptable descriptions with regard to the enablement aspect. Enablement Requirements in Pharma and Biotech Patents Article 12.7 of Circular 10/2026/TT-BKHCN (Circular 10) adds to the requirements of Article 102 of the IP Law that the description must demonstrate the novelty, inventive step, and industrial applicability of the technical solution. For pharmaceutical composition subject matters, Article 12.9 of Circular 10 sets out that the description must present the results of clinical trials and/or the pharmacological effects of the claimed pharmaceutical composition, and must include at least the following information: Substance/mixture used. Testing method (system) employed. Information on the test results. Correlation between the pharmacological effects obtained from the tests and the application of the pharmaceutical product in the prevention, diagnosis, and treatment of diseases. The Guidelines note that pharmacological study results should be presented in a quantified manner, and pharmacological