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​ 

August 21, 2025
Although the “passing off” principle has sometimes faced criticism for potentially broadening trademark protection—particularly in cases involving unregistered or unconventional marks like shapes, scents, or sounds—it serves an essential purpose. It safeguards the rights of business owners and shields consumers from deception, ensuring fair competition and reflecting the realities of modern commerce. What is passing off, and why is registrability not required? The passing-off principle is a legal concept rooted in English law, aimed at preventing a person from falsely representing or using a mark similar to another’s in a way that causes consumers to mistakenly believe the goods or services come from the same source. Under Thai law, the passing-off principle is provided under Section 46 of the Thai Trademark Act, which states: No person shall be entitled to bring legal proceedings to prevent or to recover damages for the infringement of an unregistered trademark. The provisions of this Section shall not affect the right of the owner of an unregistered trademark to bring legal proceedings against any person for passing off goods as those of the owner of the trademark. The passing-off principle can be interpreted as a practical legal concept. It does not require proof that the mark is registrable or meets the registrability criteria under trademark law. It is sufficient to show that the mark has established goodwill and that the other party’s use of a similar mark is likely to confuse consumers, making it a straightforward and effective tool for protecting brand assets. Requiring a claimant to prove that an unregistered mark could have been registered would undermine the very function of passing off. The doctrine was conceived precisely to fill the gaps left by the registration system. Imposing registrability criteria would nullify its function and leave many commercially valuable identifiers unprotected. If the
Read More
August 15, 2025
Indonesia’s Directorate General of Intellectual Property (DGIP) has introduced a temporary feature in its online filing system to accommodate the submission of annual patent working statements. The requirement to submit these annual working statements was introduced under the amended Patent Law enacted on October 28, 2024, but the implementing regulation has still not been issued. Annual Working Statements Article 20A of the amended Patent Law requires all patentees to submit an annual statement regarding the implementation of their patents in Indonesia. This obligation applies to all active patents, regardless of when they were granted. The annual working statement declares the status of implementation of the patented invention within Indonesia. Acceptable forms of implementation include: Manufacturing the patented product (whether commercialized or not) Utilizing the patented process (whether commercialized or not) Importation Licensing If the patent has not yet been implemented in Indonesia, the DGIP provides an option to indicate: “The mentioned registered patent has not been implemented in Indonesia.” The statement must be made using the official template provided by the DGIP through the online filing system. Submission The working statement must be submitted annually no later than December 31 of each calendar year. No supporting documents are needed for the submission apart from the signed form itself. A color scanned copy will suffice; the original document is not required. There is currently no official fee for submitting the working statement. While the submission process may eventually align with annuity fee payments, the current process remains separate due to the pending implementing regulation. The submission process may be subject to change upon issuance of the implementing regulation, which is under discussion and expected in the coming months. In the interim, the DGIP accepts submissions of overdue working statements, allowing patentees to fulfill their obligations retroactively. This flexibility is expected
Read More
July 31, 2025
The Madrid System for international trademark registration provides the opportunity for a simplified and cost-effective way to register trademarks in multiple countries through a single application. Indonesia joined the Madrid System in 2018, and in 2024 alone, it received over 8,600 applications through this system. Despite the system’s effectiveness, it is important for trademark owners to be aware of the potential risks of refusal that can arise during the process of registration. Trademark applicants must pay close attention to these critical points when designating Indonesia. Appointing a Local Representative to Respond An applicant or representative of an international registration (IR) application that has been provisionally refused must appoint a local Indonesian representative in order to submit a response to the provisional refusal. This appointment is solely for the purpose of responding to the refusal in Indonesia; it is not necessary if the IR has not received any rejection. Furthermore, the local representative should not be registered with WIPO, as doing so would affect representation across all designated countries. Timing When it comes to calculating the deadline for responding to a provisional refusal, there is a discrepancy between the methods used by the DGIP and WIPO. Under the Indonesian Trademark Law, trademark owners can file a response within 30 working days, excluding weekends and national holidays. However, the WIPO cover letter accompanying the DGIP’s provisional refusal notice specifies both the start date and the deadline for responding to the notification, which is calculated as 30 calendar days, including weekends and national holidays. Therefore, a response to the provisional refusal of IR should be submitted in accordance with the WIPO cover letter to prevent any formality issue. Grounds for Refusal After an IR application is published in Indonesia’s Trademark Gazette, it undergoes substantive examination by the Directorate General of Intellectual Property (DGIP) examiners. The
Read More
July 30, 2025
Artificial intelligence (AI) model training and data scraping are essential processes in the development of modern AI systems. AI model training involves using large datasets to teach machine learning algorithms to recognize patterns, make predictions, or generate new content. Data scraping refers to the automated extraction of information from websites or digital sources, often to assemble the vast datasets required for effective AI training. As these practices become more widespread, questions about the legality of using third-party content—especially copyrighted works—have become increasingly important. In Thailand, the legal landscape for AI developers is shaped primarily by the Copyright Act, which presents unique challenges due to the absence of a fair-use exception. This article examines the copyright-related risks and legal uncertainties facing AI developers under Thailand’s current copyright law and practices, offering strategic guidance for navigating this complex environment. Copyright Risks in AI Scraping and Training Thailand’s Copyright Act does not provide a broad fair use or fair dealing exception, unlike some other jurisdictions, such as the United States. This absence has significant consequences for AI developers: No general defense for AI training: Any use of copyrighted material for AI model training is presumed to be infringing unless a specific, narrow statutory exception applies or explicit permission is obtained from the rights holder. There is no general legal basis for using copyrighted works in AI training without authorization. Increased rights clearance burden: Developers must identify and secure licenses for every copyrighted work included in their training datasets. Given the scale and diversity of data required for effective AI models, this process can be both impractical and costly. Legal ambiguity and litigation risk: The lack of clear statutory guidance or case law leaves developers in a legal gray area. There is no established precedent clarifying whether certain uses of copyrighted material for
Read More