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 24, 2017

The Thai Government’s Campaign to Improve IPR Protection and Enforcement

Subscribe to Updates
Informed Counsel

The Office of the United States Trade Representative (USTR) has placed Thailand on its Priority Watch List (PWL) every year since 2007 due to the significant influx of counterfeit goods available both online and in local markets, and the lack of effective and deterrent enforcement measures in the country.

However, the USTR stated in its Special 301 Report  released in April 2017 that the United States was prepared to review Thailand’s PWL status if the Thai government continued taking positive steps and made substantial progress in addressing the USTR’s concerns over a number of issues. Possible further actions that the government could take include:

  • introducing an effective legal provision on landlord liability;
  • preventing circumvention of technological protection measures;
  • resolving the backlog of pending patent applications;
  • combating the widespread use of unlicensed software;
  • reducing the lengthy time frames for civil IP enforcement proceedings; and
  • increasing civil damages awards, which have traditionally been quite low. 

Encouraged by the possibility of Thailand being removed from the PWL, the Prime Minister of Thailand, H.E. Gen. Prayuth Chan-ocha, took this matter into consideration by the National Council for Peace and Order (NCPO) and ordered all concerned parties to take immediate steps to suppress the circulation of counterfeit goods in Thailand. In turn, the NCPO has assigned the Department of Intellectual Property (DIP) to coordinate and achieve this goal by the end of 2017.

The DIP and Internal Security Operations Command (ISOC) have categorized notorious markets into two categories and projected that counterfeit goods and pirated goods in the first group will completely disappear by the end of September 2017, while those in the second group will be gone by the end of 2017. The markets in these two groups are listed as follows:

First group: 

  • Mahboonkrong Center (MBK)
  • Pantip Plaza
  • Pratunam area
  • Rong Kluea Market (on the Thai-Cambodian border in Sa Kaeo province)

Second group:

  • Klong Thom area
  • Ban Mo area
  • Chatuchak Weekend Market

The DIP and ISOC, together with IP owners, are taking this matter very seriously and aggressively enforcing IP rights at the notorious markets mentioned above. For example, the DIP and IP owners (or their representatives) have performed a number of surveillance sweeps at MBK. The DIP has even set up an “IP Enforcement Center” within MBK to pressure illicit sellers in the area, with enforcement actions conducted against numerous stores selling counterfeit goods, resulting in a number of infringers either being shut down by authorities or closing voluntarily to avoid legal action.

In addition to the enforcement schemes that were implemented by the Thai government after the release of the Special 301 Report, the DIP has supported a number of legislative measures designed to improve the IP situation in Thailand, such as a plan to enact ministerial regulations to support  Section 32/3 of the amendments to the Copyright Act, amendments to the Computer Crime Act, and amendments to the Trademark Act concerning the protection of sound marks.

Moreover, the Director General of the DIP stated in a DIP consultation meeting with the private sector on July 7, 2017, that accession to the Madrid Protocol should be completed in November 2017 to support international trademark registration in Thailand. At the same time, the DIP is taking all possible steps to clear the current backlog of patent applications and improve the Thai patent and trademark registration system, including by hiring more patent and trademark officers.

The DIP also recently signed a memorandum of understanding with the USTR in July 2017, in order to strengthen the relationship and cooperation between the two agencies. The agreement aims to improve the management and efficiency of Thailand’s IP system by promoting information exchange and capacity-building activities between the USTR and the DIP.

In light of the serious steps taken by the Thai government and the DIP over the past few months, if these steps taken by the Thai government are sustained and Thailand follows through on the commitments above to crack down on IP infringement and expand IP rights, the hope of releasing Thailand from the PWL may soon be realized. 

Download Full Article
Related Professionals

Practices

Intellectual Property

Location

RELATED INSIGHTS​ 

September 24, 2026
Vietnam is implementing and developing a broad package of regulatory reforms that could reshape how IP, data, digital platforms, and product authenticity are regulated and enforced. Several of the key measures have been led by the Ministry of Public Security in its legislative and administrative capacity, as part of a broader government effort. The core reform package consists of four key legal instruments: proposed amendments to the Criminal Code, a proposed new Data Security Law, a draft Decree on Product Identification, Authentication and Traceability, and the newly enacted Decree No. 330/2026/ND-CP. These instruments include rules on criminal enforcement, data security, electronic identification, product identification and traceability, administrative violations, and cybersecurity sanctions. Combined, these measures will affect copyright enforcement, industrial property rights, trade secrets, AI training data, product provenance, online takedowns, valuation of counterfeit goods and electronic evidence. It is worth noting that, in addition to strengthening criminal penalties for IP crimes, Vietnam’s emerging regulatory framework increasingly treats infringement, data misuse, product authentication, and platform-enabled violations as interconnected regulatory and enforcement challenges. For rights holders and foreign investors, this could mean stronger tools against counterfeiting and online infringement, but also more compliance obligations around data, traceability, AI, platform controls and government-facing reporting. Expansion of Criminal IP Enforcement Proposed amendments to Article 225 of the Criminal Code would expand criminal copyright exposure beyond reproduction and distribution to cover large-scale commercial public performance and online communication of works, phonograms and video recordings. This is important because piracy is increasingly about streaming, unauthorized communication, and platform access models rather than physical copying. Aggravated copyright infringement could be subject to up to 10 years in prison for individuals and fines of up to VND 6 billion (about USD 228,300) for commercial legal entities. The amended Article 226 would expand criminal industrial property liability beyond
Read More
September 21, 2026
Thailand’s first-to-file trademark system has a serious vulnerability: it lacks both an explicit mechanism for refusing bad-faith registrations and any means of invalidating them in court after the five-year limitation period has expired. While brand owners worldwide confront trademark squatting, Thailand’s statutory silence stands out, particularly in light of AIPPI’s 2017 Resolution Q249, which recommended that every jurisdiction provide clear tools to address bad faith at all stages of the trademark lifecycle. Nearly a decade later, Thailand has yet to act. This article proposes a concrete reform blueprint, drawing on the legislative models of China, the United Kingdom, and the European Union. The Statutory Gap Under the Thai Trademark Act B.E. 2534, no provision expressly authorizes examiners to reject an application on grounds of bad faith. Section 8(10) addresses well-known marks but offers no relief where the targeted mark lacks well-known status. Practitioners have resorted to Section 8(9)—which bars marks “contrary to public order, morality, or public policy”—as a workaround. However, this provision was designed to address the characteristics of the mark itself, not the applicant’s intent. Thai Supreme Court decisions have split on whether it can reach bad-faith conduct, creating persistent legal uncertainty. The gap extends beyond examination. Civil actions to cancel a bad-faith registration must be brought within five years—a deadline that frequently expires before foreign brand owners discover the squatted mark. Cancellation through the Board of Trademarks remains available but is slow, costly, and subject to court appeal, leaving bad-faith registrations in force during protracted proceedings. The system effectively rewards squatters and penalizes legitimate owners. Lessons from International Best Practices Several major jurisdictions have already closed this gap. China’s 2019 amendment to Article 4 of the Trademark Law introduced an absolute ground for refusal: “bad faith trademark applications without intent to use shall be rejected.” Bad
Read More
September 14, 2026
Myanmar’s first-to-file trademark registration regime under the Trademark Law 2019—which became fully operational in April 2023—provides mark owners with enhanced legal protection compared with the country’s former system. Correspondingly, the current system imposes more rigorous statutory requirements for obtaining, maintaining, and enforcing rights in marks. In this first-to-file trademark registration system, however, evidence of use remains particularly significant, as it may establish acquired distinctiveness, support a claim that a mark is well-known, and strengthen the owner’s position in both registration and enforcement proceedings. Accordingly, it can be said that this framework is underpinned by three key concepts: distinctiveness, well-known status, and, importantly, use of the trademark. Trademark Distinctiveness Under the Trademark Law, signs that lack distinctiveness are generally ineligible for mark protection. These signs include generic terms, basic shapes, unstylized single letters or numerals, and signs that merely describe the kind, quality, quantity, intended purpose, value, geographical origin, production time, or other characteristics of the relevant goods or services. However, a mark that would otherwise be refused on distinctiveness or descriptiveness grounds may be registrable if it has acquired distinctiveness through its use prior to the filing date. To show this, the applicant must demonstrate that the mark became distinctive to relevant consumers through continuous, exclusive, and good-faith use in trade within Myanmar. The burden of proving acquired distinctiveness rests with the mark owner. Accordingly, sufficient evidence demonstrating both use of the mark and the level of consumer recognition attained should be prepared in advance. Well-Known Mark Criteria Myanmar’s Trademark Rules, which govern the substantive examination of mark registration applications, establish criteria for determining well-known marks, aligned with international standards. Where an applicant claims well-known status—whether to overcome a refusal on relative grounds or to oppose a third party’s registration—the registrar will assess the claim based on the following
Read More
September 14, 2026
On August 23, 2026, Vietnam’s National Assembly passed Law No. 11/2026/QH16, amending the country’s Customs Law with effect from March 1, 2027. The amendments represent a substantial reform of Vietnam’s customs-based intellectual property enforcement regime. The reforms come amid considerable external pressure. In its 2026 Special 301 review, the US Trade Representative (USTR) designated Vietnam a “priority foreign country,” citing widespread counterfeiting, weak border enforcement, limited ex officio customs powers, and the absence of controls over goods in transit. Vietnam’s legislative response signals a commitment to bringing its border enforcement practices into line with international expectations. For IP rights holders operating in or through Vietnam, the amended law introduces several tools that substantially strengthen enforcement options at the border. Closing the Transit Gap One of the most consequential amendments is the extension of IP-related customs enforcement to goods in transit. Previously, Vietnam’s customs regime applied IP controls only to goods being imported or exported, a gap the USTR had specifically identified as enabling infringing goods to pass through Vietnamese ports with impunity. Vietnam’s geographic position as a logistics hub for Southeast Asia means that substantial volumes of goods transit its ports and free-trade zones. Extending enforcement to cover these shipments brings Vietnam closer to the standard set by the EU’s customs enforcement regulation and addresses a longstanding concern of multinational brand owners whose goods are frequently counterfeited in the region. Strengthened Suspension and Ex Officio Powers The amended law introduces a dual-track suspension mechanism (Article 73(2)). Customs authorities will suspend clearance upon request by an IP rights holder (or authorized representative) who provides evidence of IP ownership, evidence of infringement, and a financial guarantee. Customs can now proactively suspend clearance on an ex officio basis if, during inspection and monitoring, they discover “clear grounds” to suspect that imported, exported,
Read More