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​ 

June 24, 2026
Patent enablement requirements are provided under Article 102 of Vietnam’s Law on Intellectual Property (IP Law). In particular, a patent specification must “fully and clearly disclose the nature of the invention to such an extent that, based on the specification, a person having ordinary skill in the relevant art can implement the invention.” In pharmaceutical and biotechnology patents, this requirement is more complicated and subject to more rigorous assessment. The Patent Examination Guidelines (Guidelines) of the Intellectual Property Office of Vietnam (IP Office) were amended in March 2026 to introduce Annexes III and IV for the pharmaceutical and biotechnology sectors, in which Annex III provides detailed guidelines on the assessment of specification requirements. These amendments were made under a project for strengthening capacity in industrial property examination between the Japan International Cooperation Agency (JICA) and the IP Office. Annex III provides detailed instructions on how examiners assess enablement in a pharmaceutical or biotechnology application, and offers examples of acceptable and unacceptable descriptions with regard to the enablement aspect. Enablement Requirements in Pharma and Biotech Patents Article 12.7 of Circular 10/2026/TT-BKHCN (Circular 10) adds to the requirements of Article 102 of the IP Law that the description must demonstrate the novelty, inventive step, and industrial applicability of the technical solution. For pharmaceutical composition subject matters, Article 12.9 of Circular 10 sets out that the description must present the results of clinical trials and/or the pharmacological effects of the claimed pharmaceutical composition, and must include at least the following information: Substance/mixture used. Testing method (system) employed. Information on the test results. Correlation between the pharmacological effects obtained from the tests and the application of the pharmaceutical product in the prevention, diagnosis, and treatment of diseases. The Guidelines note that pharmacological study results should be presented in a quantified manner, and pharmacological
Read More
June 16, 2026
Since the implementation of the Trademark Law 2019 on April 1, 2023, Myanmar has operated under a modern first-to-file trademark system that brings its registration framework closer to international practice. As the new regime continues to develop in practice, applicants are increasingly required to navigate formal examination requirements, substantive objections, and procedural deadlines with greater precision. This article provides a high-level review of the trademark examination process in Myanmar, focusing on the principal stages from initial review to approval, the types of objections commonly raised by the Intellectual Property Department (IPD), and the key considerations for responding effectively. A clear understanding of these issues is essential for applicants seeking to secure registration efficiently and to mitigate avoidable delays or refusals. Examination Process: Key Stages Trademark applications filed with the IPD undergo two stages of review. Formality Examination The IPD first verifies compliance with procedural requirements, including: Correct Nice Classification Clear mark representation Accurate applicant details Clearly defined goods or services Representative details, if the application is filed by a representative Other formality requirements cover translation and transliteration of any non-English or non-Myanmar elements in the mark, color claim details, applicable disclaimers, and payment of official fees. Deficiencies result in an office action requiring correction within 30 days, which may be extended upon request. Registrability Examination The IPD also assesses registrability. A mark may be refused if it: Lacks distinctiveness Is descriptive or generic Misleads the public or violates public order/morality Contains prohibited state symbols Only compliant applications proceed to publication. Responding to Office Actions Applicants must respond within 30 days of notification from the IPD. Depending on the nature of the objection, strategies may include submitting legal arguments for distinctiveness, providing evidence of acquired distinctiveness, filing appropriate disclaimers, clarifying descriptions such as color claims, or amending the listed goods
Read More
June 15, 2026
The surge in AI development has led to a desperate demand for large, high-quality training data. However, real-world data can be expensive to collect, difficult to access, and often subject to strict privacy and regulatory constraints. Synthetic data, which consists of artificially generated records that replicate the statistical properties of real-world data without reproducing specific individuals’ information, provides an appealing solution by generating artificial datasets at scale without relying on identifiable personal information. It combines speed, cost efficiency, and regulatory compliance, making it a sensible alternative for organizations seeking to reduce risks while maintaining data utility. When properly anonymized, synthetic datasets may fall outside the scope of laws such as the EU’s General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR) or Thailand’s Personal Data Protection Act (PDPA), reducing compliance burdens while still supporting high-quality model training. However, relying on synthetic data without rigorous legal due diligence could be a strategic mistake. It replaces one set of known risks (scraping, direct privacy liability) with a new set of complex liabilities. The narrative that synthetic data is a “silver bullet” for privacy and IP compliance is dangerous and could be misleading. While synthetic data addresses data scarcity, it also introduces new legal uncertainties. Legal counsel should anticipate downstream risks arising from compromised data sources. Models trained on unlawfully obtained data may need to be decommissioned, even if their outputs appear lawful. What is synthetic data? Synthetic data refers to artificially generated information created using AI techniques such as deep learning and generative models. Instead of copying real records, it reproduces the statistical patterns and relationships found in the original dataset. Synthetic data generally falls into three categories: Fully synthetic data – Entirely new data points generated from learned patterns. The model studies the structure of the original data and produces records that resemble real-world
Read More
June 10, 2026
In March 2026, the Intellectual Property Office of Vietnam (IP Office) issued a decision refusing a trademark application after considering an opposition based primarily on copyright grounds. The outcome is noteworthy because the foreign brand owner had neither trademark registrations nor applications in Vietnam at the time the opposition was filed, and the IP Office has historically applied a stringent approach to oppositions relying on copyright. The Opposition Maurten is a well-known Swedish sports nutrition brand recognized globally for its innovative hydrogel technology, which is designed to help endurance athletes fuel more effectively without gastrointestinal discomfort. The brand’s distinctive logo is characterized by clean lines and a bold black-and-white color scheme, and has long been associated with the company’s performance products. The brand’s logo is displayed above. An identical mark was filed for registration by a Vietnamese trademark squatter. In 2023, a Vietnamese individual filed an application for registration of an identical mark (Application No. 4-2023-38668), a practice commonly observed in Vietnam as trademark squatting. The brand owner engaged Tilleke & Gibbins to assist with strategy and filing an opposition to the mark. At the time, Maurten had no trademark rights or meaningful use in Vietnam, and global marketing data showed only modest figures without any local presence. Thus, to convince the IP Office to refuse the squatter’s application, instead of relying on trademark rights or use evidence, the opposition strategy centered on the copyright protection of the logo itself, as copyright arises automatically in Vietnam upon creation of the work and does not require registration. (It is worth noting, however, that the IP Office has traditionally been cautious in accepting copyright as a basis for refusing trademark applications.) On September 24, 2024, an opposition was filed on three main grounds: confusing similarity, copyright infringement of the artistic work,
Read More