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

July 1, 2020

Thailand: Analyzing the First Website-Blocking Case Related to Online Trademark Infringement

Subscribe to Updates
Managing Intellectual Property

Traditional IP enforcement measures are sometimes ill fit to deal with the rapidly evolving nature of internet resources in the digital era. Thailand has been responding to the exponential rise of online IP infringement on a rolling basis—most recently in 2017 when it amended the Computer Crime Act (CCA) to give IP owners the option of blocking websites that post IP-infringing content. This is set out in section 20(3) of the law.

Since this provision took effect, more than 90 cases have been brought to the Department of Intellectual Property (DIP), and over 1,400 URLs from more than 50 websites have been blocked. However, most of the cases brought were for copyright infringement, especially in relation to the film and music industries, and until recently no trademark owner had taken action against online trademark infringement under the amended law. The first test case for doing so was in 2020, when a major Japanese manufacturer of imaging and optical products successfully used the website-blocking measures under section 20(3) for using to fight online trademark infringement in Thailand.

Background

The company received customer complaints about a website selling dashboard cameras bearing its trademark. Hoping to shut down the infringing pages immediately, they sent cease-and-desist letters to the website operator, the website registrar, and the seller to no avail. Despite repeated attempts to contact the concerned parties, the pages remained online.

Meanwhile, several additional infringing websites surfaced. It appeared that in this case the long-accepted traditional measures would not be able to effectively combat the sale of infringing content in a timely manner. The legal team decided to turn to the website-blocking measures of the CCA. These measures were theoretically sound but were untested for enforcement against trademark infringement, as no trademark owner had previously attempted to use this legal option.

Obtaining the Blocking Order

As the DIP had also not previously encountered such a strategy for a trademark infringement matter, some officers had concerns, and discussions were crucial. After multiple consultations with the DIP officers, the Japanese company finally filed a trademark infringement complaint directly with the DIP in late January 2020, without needing to initiate a police case. This was the first complaint ever submitted directly to the DIP in relation to a trademark infringement matter.

The DIP director-general agreed that the offering for sale of dashboard cameras bearing our client’s trademark without authorization constituted infringement under the Trademark Act B.E. 2534 (1991). The DIP then forwarded the matter to the Ministry of Digital Economy and Society (MDES) for further action. After the case was approved, an MDES officer filed a complaint with the court requesting that the infringing websites be blocked. With the court’s approval, the MDES officer then sent an official notice to the ISPs and requested that they block access to the specified URLs. Before long, the ISPs complied fully with the court order.

Outlook

This test case, which was handled by Tilleke & Gibbins, successfully proved that the website-blocking measures under the CCA are actionable and effective for online trademark infringement cases in Thailand. This has important implications not only for copyright and trademark owners, but also for other IP owners, who can now consider pursuing this efficient option to eliminate online infringement of their products or services.

Download Full Article
Related Professionals

Practices

Dispute Resolution and Litigation

Intellectual Property

Location

RELATED INSIGHTS​

August 2, 2021
Lawyers from Tilleke & Gibbins’ Bangkok office have authored the Thailand chapter of the 2021 edition of Chambers & Partners Aviation Finance & Leasing Guide. John Frangos, partner and deputy director of Tilleke & Gibbins’ dispute resolution practice; Santhapat Periera, partner in the firm’s corporate and commercial department; and Nuanchun Somboonvinij, senior associate in the firm’s dispute resolution group, provided the Thailand update for the publication, which covers the most important legal developments affecting aircraft lessors, lessees, and financiers in 32 jurisdictions worldwide. The guide provides in-depth details on the legal regimes affecting all aspects of aircraft sale and purchase, aircraft and engine leasing, and aircraft debt finance, including sale and lease agreement terms; taxation; lease registration and enforcement; lease assignment/novation; insurance and reinsurance; debt structuring; securities; liens; and many others that affect the day-to-day operations of leading players in the aviation industry. Chambers and Partners’ Global Practice Guides provide in-house counsel with expert legal commentary focusing on practical legal issues affecting business, and enable readers to compare legislation and relevant procedures across a range of key jurisdictions. The full Chambers & Partners Aviation Finance & Leasing Guide—including the Thailand chapter—is available for free on the Chambers and Partners website, and the Thailand chapter be downloaded as a stand-alone PDF through the button below.
Read More
July 23, 2021
To enforce more rigorous control of cross-border advertising activities, the Vietnamese government issued Decree No. 70/2021/ND-CP dated July 20, 2021 (Decree 70), amending and supplementing provisions of Decree No. 181/2013/ND-CP dated November 14, 2013, elaborating on some articles of the Law on Advertising. Decree 70 will take effect on September 15, 2021. According to the Deputy Director of the Authority of Broadcasting and Electronic Information, Decree 70 will allow better control over cross-border advertisement on platforms such as Facebook or YouTube. To that end, Decree 70 stipulates new obligations for these providers while also consolidating executive authority over cross-border advertising activities under the Ministry of Information and Communications (MIC). Revised Obligations for Cross-Border Advertising Services Significantly, Decree 70 overhauls Article 13, which provides the definitions and obligations for cross-border advertising service providers. Accordingly, cross-border advertising services are explained as the utilization of websites hosted outside Vietnam to provide ads targeted at Vietnamese consumers and obtain revenue in Vietnam. Notably, Article 13 defines such websites as a “single or multi-website system …  providing users with services for storage, provision, use, search, or exchange of information, sound or image sharing, forum creation, or live chat to supply advertising services.” This would effectively encompass many types of online environments, specifically social network sites, such as Facebook. In addition, more entities will be taxed on cross-border advertising revenue under Article 13, including not only service providers but also both domestic and overseas advertisers. Under Decree 70, cross-border advertising services must comply with Vietnam’s cybersecurity and intellectual property laws in addition to the Law on Advertising. Decree 70 requires foreign providers of cross-border advertising services to supply the MIC with direct contact information 15 days before commencing cross-border advertising activities in Vietnam. Domestic advertising service providers that cooperate with foreign entities to provide cross-border
Read More
July 20, 2021
Under the Thai Government’s latest Covid-19 prevention measures, private companies and government entities in the Bangkok Metropolitan Area and adjacent provinces must implement strict work-from-home measures for 14 days, with very limited exceptions, from July 20 to August 3 (subject to extension). During this period, the Thai Department of Intellectual Property (DIP) will temporarily close its physical receiving office and implement 100% online filing for all types of applications and requests. In anticipation of a surge in use of the online filing system, the DIP will upgrade its IT infrastructure from 5.00 p.m. on Friday, July 23, to 4.00 a.m. of Tuesday, July 27 (note that July 26 is a government holiday), during which time the system will be offline. This means neither online nor physical filings will be accepted during this period. The DIP has not allowed extensions of time for due dates of trademark applications falling during this period. If you have a due date that will fall within this period (including deadlines for responding to provisional refusals of International Trademark Registrations) please make sure to reach out to us by this Thursday, July 22, to ensure that your deadlines will be met. While exceptions for late submissions caused by the government measures may be available, requests for such exceptions must be made in writing and accompanied by evidence, and will be granted or declined based on the Registrar’s final discretion. As such it is not recommended to rely on such exceptions unless absolutely necessary. For more information, please contact Tilleke & Gibbins on +66 2056 5555 or [email protected].
Read More