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​ 

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
July 27, 2026
In March 2025, Thailand’s Central Intellectual Property and International Trade Court (IP&IT Court) issued a landmark judgment in favor of Luckin Coffee, China’s leading retail coffee chain. The judgment marked a significant turnaround following earlier trademark litigation involving Luckin Coffee from 2021 to 2023 that had generated widespread public attention and raised questions about the protection available to legitimate foreign brand owners in Thailand. In a significant subsequent development, Thailand’s Court of Appeal for Specialized Cases has now affirmed the IP&IT Court’s judgment in its entirety. The appellate decision brings clarity to one of Thailand’s most closely watched trademark disputes. Significantly, this is the first case in Thailand to formally recognize the trademark squatting principle. The Court of Appeal confirmed that Luckin Coffee has a better right to the disputed mark and ordered cancellation of the defendants’ trademark registration—a key application of the “better right” doctrine. The court also upheld the substantial damages awarded at first instance, providing important guidance on assessing harm from systematic trademark squatting. Award-Winning Judgment Affirmed in Its Entirety The significance of the first-instance judgment extended beyond the outcome for Luckin Coffee. The IP&IT Court judgment was subsequently recognized in the IP&IT Court’s Distinguished Judgment Awards in 2025, reflecting the complexity, novelty, and legal significance of the issues considered in the case. The defendants nevertheless appealed the judgment, challenging several key aspects of the IP&IT Court’s decision. Luckin Coffee continued to entrust Tilleke & Gibbins as their sole attorney to pursue the case at the appellate level. After considering the defendants’ appeal and Luckin Coffee’s submissions in response, the Court of Appeal affirmed the first-instance judgment in its entirety. The judgment was announced on July 8, 2026. Better Right to the Marks The Court of Appeal confirmed Luckin Coffee’s superior rights. The orders include cancellation
Read More