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 13, 2026
When Decree No. 186/2026/ND-CP (Decree 186) takes effect on July 15, 2026, it will introduce the most significant reform of Vietnam’s administrative IP enforcement framework since Decree 99/2013/ND-CP was issued in 2013. These changes are expected to make administrative enforcement faster, more accessible, and better suited to the realities of modern IP disputes. Below are the principal reforms and their practical implications for rights holders and enforcement practitioners. The End of Notarization and Consular Legalization Among the most welcome procedural changes is the abolition of the notarization and consular legalization requirement for powers of attorney (POA) submitted in administrative enforcement proceedings. Under the previous regime, foreign rights holders were generally required to execute a POA, then have it notarized and consular legalized (if seeking customs recordal). In practice, this process frequently delayed enforcement by four to eight weeks, often long enough for infringing goods to disappear before authorities could intervene. Decree 186 removes this bottleneck, now requiring only an original or certified copy of the POA. If the document is in a foreign language, a Vietnamese translation is sufficient, provided it is certified by a competent authority or confirmed by the authorized Vietnamese IP representative. Consular legalization and notarization are no longer required. For rights holders, the practical impact is substantial. Administrative enforcement files that previously took weeks to prepare can now be completed in a matter of days, allowing much faster responses in time-sensitive matters such as warehouse raids, border interventions, and trade-fair enforcement. The decree also introduces a useful administrative simplification. Where an original POA has already been submitted to the same enforcement authority and remains valid, applicants may rely on a copy of that earlier submission by identifying the previous case file. This eliminates unnecessary duplication for rights holders pursuing multiple enforcement actions before the same
Read More
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
Read More
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
Read More
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
Read More