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

December 22, 2017

Thai Government’s Efforts Yield Positive Outcome in U.S. Priority Watch List

Subscribe to Updates

The notable steps taken by the government to improve the intellectual property (IP) landscape in Thailand have resulted in the nation being removed from the Office of the United States Trade Representative’s (USTR) Priority Watch List of countries deemed to have deficient intellectual property (IP) practices. Instead, Thailand has now been placed on the Watch List of countries exhibiting fewer IP issues. The USTR’s announcement of Thailand’s upgraded status on December 15, 2017, marks an important milestone for the country, as it had been on the Priority Watch List every year since 2007.

Designations in the Special 301 Report

In its annual Special 301 report, the USTR designates countries according to an assessment of whether their IP policies are harmful to U.S. commercial interests:

  • Priority Foreign Countries:countries that the USTR believes have the most onerous or egregious policies with the greatest adverse impact on US right holders or products. These countries are subject to accelerated investigations and possible sanctions.
  • Priority Watch List:countries which do not provide adequate IP protection and enforcement or market access for US creators.
  • Watch List:countries that the USTR believes merit bilateral attention to address the underlying IPR problems.

Progress in Improving Thailand’s IP Landscape

Over the past decade, the Thai government has exerted significant effort to improve IP infringement and protection in the country, which appeared to pay off in April 2017 when the United States announced that they would proceed with an Out-of-Cycle Review (OCR)  of Thailand’s placement on the Priority Watch List if the Thai government continued to take positive steps in addressing the USTR’s concerns on a number of issues. OCRs are conducted when a country has made significant efforts to strengthen IP protections within its jurisdiction, and such reviews are designed to encourage countries on the Priority Watch List to continue driving progress in resolving high-priority IP issues.

In light of the influence that OCRs can have on whether a country remains on the Priority Watch List, Prime Minister Prayuth Chan-ocha took the matter under serious consideration by instructing all concerned parties to take immediate steps to suppress the circulation of counterfeit goods in Thailand,supporting a number of legislative changes designed to improve the nation’s IP situation, and encouraging Thailand’s prompt accession to the Madrid Protocol. Further, in cooperation with all relevant stakeholders, the government took aggressive action to remove counterfeit goods from notorious markets throughout Thailand.

The USTR has recognized Thailand’s efforts as a genuine desire to improve its IP regime in numerous areas of concern. In its statement, the USTR highlighted several notable steps taken by Thailand to address IP protection and enforcement, including:

  • Creating the National Committee on Intellectual Property Policy, headed by Prime Minister Prayuth Chan-ocha;
  • Setting up the Suppression of Intellectual Property Infringement Subcommittee, headed by Deputy Prime Minister Prawit Wongsuwan, and including additional agencies which had not been included in previous incarnations of such committees (such as the Thai Food and Drug Administration);
  • Significantly increasing the number of examiners at the Department of Intellectual Property (DIP) to address the backlog of patent and trademark applications;
  • Recently acceding to the Madrid Protocol, which allows for an international trademark registration pathway;
  • Enacting new amendments to the Copyright Act and Computer Crime Act to address online IP infringement and ISP liability; and
  • Involving pharmaceutical stakeholders in amending the Drug Act, and allowing regular consultation with the Thai Food and Drug Administration.

Many of these efforts address criticisms the USTR had made against Thailand in previous versions of its Special 301 Report. In particular, the USTR highlighted the issues of copyright piracy, counterfeiting, and deficiencies in Thailand’s patent system for each year that Thailand had been on the Priority Watch List. In recent years, owing to changes in the way IP-infringing products are sold, the USTR had made note of several issues related to the online context, such as the lack of reliable notice-and-takedown procedures, and legal provisions prohibiting circumvention of technical protection measures and deletion of rights management information.

From the enforcement side, by introducing amendments to its Copyright Act and Computer Crime Act, the government has provided additional legal approaches for IP owners seeking to enforce their rights online. From the protection side, increasing the Thai DIP’s capacity to process patent and trademark applications will reduce the current backlog and encourage companies in IP-intensive industries, such as entertainment, pharmaceuticals, and technology, to do business in Thailand. Similarly, Thailand’s recent accession to the Madrid Protocol will also make it easier for foreign companies choosing to use this international application pathway to protect their valuable trademarks in Thailand, further demonstrating to foreign companies that the country is a safe place to do business.

Moving Forward

Thailand’s upgraded status is an acknowledgment by the USTR that the nation’s efforts to update its IP legislation for the 21st century is proceeding in the right direction. Now that Thailand has been removed from the Priority Watch List, the government is in a strong position to continue driving efforts to achieve the goals of Thailand 4.0 and the economic prosperity of a value-based economy by providing strong and effective IP protection for all rights holders. The time is right for IP owners to take advantage of the current legal climate by taking steps to fully protect and enforce their IP rights in Thailand.

Download Full Article
Related Professionals

Practices

Intellectual Property

Location

RELATED INSIGHTS​ 

July 25, 2025
Over the first half of 2025, the government of Vietnam has implemented a comprehensive suite of legislative reforms that significantly impact the country’s intellectual property (IP) framework. These amendments, most of which took effect on 1 July 2025, span the criminal, civil, administrative, and judicial sectors, and are part of a broader initiative to modernize Vietnam’s legal infrastructure, strengthen enforcement mechanisms, and harmonize domestic regulations with international standards. A summary of the key legislative changes and their potential implications for IP protection and enforcement across Vietnam is provided below. Criminal Code: Stricter penalties Under the 2025 amendments to Vietnam’s Criminal Code, penalties for offenses involving the manufacturing and trading of counterfeit goods have been significantly escalated. Individuals convicted of such violations now face fines ranging from VND 200 million to VND 2 billion (approximately USD 7,700 to USD 77,000; up from VND 100 million to VND 1 billion). For corporate entities, the penalties are even more severe, with fines ranging from VND 2 billion to VND 40 billion (roughly USD 77,000 to USD 1.54 million; up from VND 1 billion to VND 20 billion). These heightened penalties reflect the government’s intensified efforts to deter counterfeit-related crimes and protect consumer rights. Law on Handling Administrative Violations: Extended statute of limitations and application of electronic procedure The statute of limitations for addressing administrative violations in the IP sector is still two years. However, in cases where such violations are referred by procedural authorities, this period is extended by one year. The time taken by these authorities to process the case is now included within the overall limitation period. In addition, the Law on Handling Administrative Violations facilitates the use of electronic procedures, provided that the necessary infrastructure, technical systems, and information conditions are in place. Specifically, enforcement authorities are now permitted
Read More
July 21, 2025
Distinctiveness is a fundamental requirement for a trademark’s registration and protection under Thai law. The Thai courts typically assess distinctiveness based on a mark’s inherent characteristics rather than its use, as proving acquired distinctiveness through use requires substantial evidence, including the duration of use, extent of distribution and promotional efforts. However, the Intellectual Property and International Trade Court (IP & IT Court) has recently ruled that the figurative mark WEPLAY had acquired distinctiveness through use – an uncommon ruling under Thai trademark law. Subsequently, the Court of Appeal for Specialised Cases affirmed the mark’s inherent distinctiveness based on a holistic assessment of its components. This article discusses the criteria for proving both inherent and acquired distinctiveness, offering examples from both courts to provide valuable insights into case preparation and understanding of how the courts assess distinctiveness. Background In 2017 the plaintiff filed a trademark application for the mark depicted below for goods in Class 28, including toy building blocks: The registrar rejected the application on the grounds of non-distinctiveness under Section 7 of the Trademark Act. The plaintiff appealed to the Board of Trademarks, which considered that, when the term ‘weplay’ is used for goods in Class 28, it is descriptive of the nature of the goods applied for as “playthings”. Therefore, ‘weplay’ was deemed nondistinctive under Section 7, Paragraph 2(2) of the Trademark Act. IP & IT Court decision In 2024 the IP & IT Court ruled that the term ‘weplay’ is not a coined or invented word; instead, it is a combination of ‘we’ and ‘play’, conveying the meaning of ‘we play’. When the term is used for goods in Class 28, it describes the nature of the goods as “playthings”. Consequently, the mark was deemed non-distinctive. However, the court considered the evidence presented by the plaintiff,
Read More
July 14, 2025
Life sciences specialists from Tilleke & Gibbins have updated the firm’s guide to pharmaceutical data exclusivity regulations and practices in Southeast Asia. This guide contains quick-reference information on the availability of data exclusivity protections and limitations in Cambodia, Indonesia, Laos, Malaysia, Myanmar, Thailand, and Vietnam. Developing and launching a new drug on a commercial scale requires an enormous amount of time and investment in research and development (R&D), including pre-clinical testing and clinical trials. When considering the aggregate amount of drug development costs, it is important to recognize that this includes not only the investment in developing new drugs that get approved by a government food and drug regulator and are successfully brought to market, but also the R&D expenditures on a large number of potential pharmaceutical compounds and products that never actually make it to market. In particular, considerable investment is required in order to conduct and produce clinical trial data—to prove safety, efficacy and effectiveness of a new drug—that would warrant marketing approval by the regulatory authority. Such data is proprietary in nature and highly valuable for a research-based pharmaceutical company that develops an original drug. On the other hand, patent law typically confers generic drug manufacturers with the ability to engage in various preparatory activities with a view to obtaining marketing approval for a generic product before the patent for the original drug expires (commonly known as a “Bolar provision”). Since a generic drug maker may submit an application for marketing approval of a generic product before the relevant patent expires, the extent to which the drug originator’s data submitted to the regulatory authority is protected—or in other words, the extent to which the generic company may rely on the drug originator’s previously filed data, which underpins the safety and efficacy of the drug, to support
Read More
June 30, 2025
Vietnam is making notable strides in decentralization, aiming to grant greater autonomy to local government entities to streamline administrative procedures. As part of this effort, the government issued Decree No. 133/2025/ND-CP on decentralization of state management of the Ministry of Science and Technology dated June 12, 2025 (Decree 133). Effective from July 1, 2025, Decree 133 decentralizes and delegates numerous state management functions—including in intellectual property (IP) and technology transfer—to provincial-level People’s Committees (PCs). This reform signals a profound shift in how IP rights are administered and enforced across Vietnam. While this offers new opportunities for IP owners, agents, and innovators, it also introduces additional operational complexities. Impact on IP and Technology Transfer Decree 133 significantly reallocates responsibilities in IP and technology transfer, primarily to provincial-level PCs. Provincial PCs and other provincial authorities are now empowered to handle a wide range of tasks, including but not limited to the following: Issuance of duplicates and reissuance of certificates of registration. Registration of license agreements for the transfer of usage rights for industrial property objects (e.g., trademarks, patents) and recording amendments, extensions, or early terminations of such agreements. Enforcing decisions on compulsory licensing of patent use rights. Evaluation and approval of technology transfer contracts—a key step in facilitating localized technological advancements. Permitting the establishment of foreign-invested scientific organizations and their branches, to encourage foreign direct investment in local R&D and technology development. Approval of provincial-level R&D tasks, aligning with local socio-economic development priorities. Legal Implications The decentralization and delegation brought forth by Decree 133 carry several significant legal implications: Echoing Decree 133, the Intellectual Property Office of Vietnam issued Notification No. 2351/TB-SHTT on June 26, 2025, announcing the cessation of 19 administrative procedures at the national level. Specifically, from July 1, 2025, the IP Office will no longer accept requests related
Read More