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​

July 14, 2021
With the rapid growth of internet use and the increasing dominance of online selling, efficient enforcement of intellectual property rights has become more cumbersome for brand owners. Any infringer equipped with the right technology can easily sell counterfeit goods on e-commerce platforms, and they can often evade responsibility by merely reposting listings or switching vendor names whenever they are challenged. In this environment, brand owners have found that it is rarely enough to simply request the takedown of infringing pages. Instead, tackling online infringement effectively and stopping the spread of counterfeit products means uncovering the true source, arresting the infringer, and seizing the goods to prevent them from being relisted entirely. Panasonic’s Success When the Japanese multinational electronics maker Panasonic discovered that fake batteries were being sold in Thailand through e-commerce websites, their first step was to send takedown requests to the platforms hosting the offending pages. However, the problem remained, with several of the counterfeit retailers shifting their advertising of counterfeit Panasonic goods to other posts. Tilleke & Gibbins thus helped Panasonic attack the problem at its root by seeking to uncover the true identity of the online sellers. We confirmed that the same infringing sellers were continuing to post counterfeit Panasonic items for sale, and during a preliminary investigation, we discovered that five online sellers even shared the same shipping address. Unsurprisingly, the address was a fake as well—our investigation team found that the given location had nothing to do with the Panasonic counterfeiting operation, and further investigation was required before the team found the hidden location of the real warehouse. We then shared the results of our investigation with the Economic Crime Suppression Division (ECD) of the Royal Thai Police to alert them to the true identity and address of the online infringer, and coordinated with
Read More
July 2, 2021
In January of 2017 the Computer Crimes Act, B.E 2550 (CCA) was amended, providing, amongst other things, additional detail on computer data classifications that justify orders to suspend online dissemination of content. With the additional clarity provided in the 2017 amendments, the Ministry of Digital Economy and Society of Thailand began more actively pursuing online content that it considered to be in violation of the CCA or to be compromising Thai national security as provided in the Penal Code. As a result, the number of court orders issued to suspend the dissemination of online content has risen significantly over the past few years. At the same time as this escalation of court orders to take-down or otherwise remove certain online content, there had been little or no attempt to challenge such orders, largely due to the fact that orders are issued on an ex-parte basis and because of an absence of any clear method to appeal provided in the CCA. It was not until October of 2020, more than three years after the CCA amendments, that the public learned for the first time that a challenge to a previously issued court order for the takedown of content was successfully made. In such case, the court accepted a petition in opposition to the court takedown order and scheduled an additional hearing, ruling it proper to re-conduct the hearing and giving both parties the opportunity to provide the court with full information to decide on the challenge. While this was good news for the content providers and users in this case, the court, nonetheless, failed to provide specific criteria on what would justify a court ordering an opposition hearing or on when it would allow an opposition to even be filed with the court. In February of 2021 a second challenge
Read More