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

May 29, 2017

Thailand Introduces Changes to the Appeal Proceedings for IP-Related Cases

Subscribe to Updates
Informed Counsel

Prior to the establishment of the Central Intellectual Property and International Trade Court (“IP&IT Court”) in 1997, which was the first specialized IP court in South East Asia, an IP-related lawsuit was normally heard in an ordinary court of first instance, which at the time had jurisdiction over such a dispute. The judgment of the first-instance court could then be appealed to the relevant Court of Appeal that had jurisdiction over the lower court, and then a further appeal to the Supreme Court could be pursued based on the conditions set forth in the Civil Procedure Code or Criminal Procedure Code.

With the inauguration of the IP&IT Court on December 1, 1997, came a major change to the process for appeals. The Act for the Establishment of the Procedure for the Intellectual Property and International Trade Court B.E. 2539 (1996) (“IP&IT Court Act”) prescribed that all intellectual property and international trade cases must be filed with the IP&IT Court. In addition, an appeal against any judgment of the IP&IT Court was required to be submitted directly to the Supreme Court. This streamlined procedure sought to redress the procedural delays in delivering timely judgments, specifically for intellectual property and international trade cases.

Changes to Appeal Process

In 2015, Thailand again made significant changes to its procedure regarding appeal proceedings. On September 1, 2015, the Civil Procedure Code was amended to change from the previous rights-based process to a new permission-based process. A few months later, on December 4, 2015, the Thai parliament passed two new laws affecting the appeal proceedings for intellectual property and international trade cases:

  1. The Act for the Establishment of the Procedure for the Intellectual Property and International Trade Court (No. 2) B.E. 2558 (2015), which amended the IP&IT Court Act. This new law outlined several significant revisions to previous practice, including the overhauling and streamlining of the appeal procedure in IP cases.
  2. The Act for Establishment of the Court of Appeal for Specialized Cases B.E. 2558 (2015) (“Specialized Appeal Court Act”).

The first major change resulting from the implementation of these new laws is that as from October 1, 2016, any judgments or orders of the IP&IT Court must be appealed directly to the Court of Appeal for Specialized Cases (“Specialized Appeal Court”). The second major change is that under the amended IP&IT Court Act, the appeal procedure for civil cases must be made based on provisions under the Civil Procedure Code, which has also been amended, and the appeal procedure for criminal cases must be made based on provisions under the Criminal Procedure Code.

This means that judgments and orders of the IP&IT Court—whether they are in civil or criminal cases—can be appealed further, provided that they fulfill the conditions prescribed under the Civil Procedure Code or under the Criminal Procedure Code, as the case may be. All eligible appeals must be submitted directly to the Specialized Appeal Court.

The Specialized Appeal Court

The Specialized Appeal Court was established and empowered by the Specialized Appeal Court Act to adjudicate cases appealed from the following lower specialized courts:

  1. The Tax Court
  2. The Labor Court
  3. The Bankruptcy Court
  4. The Juvenile and Family Court
  5. The IP&IT Court

The Specialized Appeal Court has five divisions corresponding to the specialized courts over which it has jurisdiction. The Intellectual Property and International Trade Case Division (“IP&IT Division”) has the power to handle all appeals filed against judgments of the IP&IT Court, including judgments handed down in all IP cases, including, for example, IP infringements, IP licensing disputes and appeal decisions of the Board of Trademarks and Board of Patents.

The Specialized Appeal Court is comprised of judges with specific knowledge and expertise in the respective subject area. Each case is adjudicated by a quorum of judges. However, any case dealing with an important issue that impacts many different areas of the law may be decided by a divisional meeting or an inter-divisional meeting of judges.

Such a meeting would include the Vice President of the Specialized Appeal Court, who is in charge of the relevant division where the matter had been heard, and all the judges in the relevant division who are on duty provided that (1) the number of judges attending the meeting cannot be less than two-thirds of all judges in the division; and (2) the resolution of the meeting will be reached by a majority vote. Currently, the IP&IT Division has three quorums of judges. The number of judges in the IP&IT Division is not publicly available, but given that each quorum consists of at least three judges, the division likely consists of at least nine judges.

As of April 7, 2017, the Specialized Appeal Court has rendered six judgments in IP-related lawsuits. All of these judgments were in criminal cases. Only one of them has been sent to the IP&IT Court for reading to the parties in the case. The other five are currently in the process of being sent to the IP&IT Court for reading. 

Further Appeal to the Supreme Court

It is possible to further appeal a judgment or order of the Specialized Appeal Court, although the process varies for criminal and civil cases. In criminal cases, parties who disagree with judgments or orders of the Specialized Appeal Court may further appeal to the Supreme Court, provided that the appeal is made only on legal issues. For factual issues in criminal cases, the right to appeal depends on the severity of the punishment as set out in the lower court’s judgment.

In civil cases, judgments or orders of the Specialized Appeal Court will be deemed final. However, any party who disagrees with a judgment or order may ask the Supreme Court for permission to appeal the decision further. The Supreme Court may grant permission if it finds that there is an issue(s) in the appeal that sets out a significant matter worthy of clarification.

Section 249 of the amended Civil Procedure Code sets out “significant matters” as follows:

  1. Matters related to the public interest or public order;
  2. When a Court of Appeal determines a significant question of law in a manner of discrepancy or contrary to a Supreme Court precedent;
  3. When a Court of Appeal determines a significant question of law in its judgment or order without citing any Supreme Court precedent;
  4. When the judgment or order of a Court of Appeal is contrary to the final judgment or order of other courts;
  5. For the purpose of developing legal interpretation; and
  6. Other significant questions according to the Regulations of the President of the Supreme Court.

On November 24, 2015, the President of the Supreme Court issued further regulations stating that other significant questions under Section 249(6) include:

  1. Judgment or order of a Court of Appeal that has a dissenting opinion(s) in substance; and
  2. Judgment or order of a Court of Appeal that rules on a significant question of law contrary to an international agreement that binds Thailand.

To request permission to appeal, the party must file a request for permission, together with the appeal petition, as well as pay the relevant court fee to the first-instance court, within one month from the reading of the Specialized Appeal Court’s judgment or order. This deadline is extendable.

After checking that the formalities have been satisfied, the first-instance court will forward a copy of the documents to the respondent in the case, who will then have the right to file their opposition against the request. At the same time, without waiting for the opposition petition, the first-instance court will forward the request and the appeal to the Supreme Court, which will have to consider the request in a timely manner.

The Supreme Court’s decision as to whether or not to permit the appeal will be sent to the first-instance court for reading to the parties in the case. If the request is granted, the other party will have the right to file their response to the appeal with the first-instance court within 15 days. This deadline is also extendable. After receiving the response to appeal, the first-instance court will forward it to the Supreme Court for consideration.

Outlook

According to The Court of Appeal for Specialized Case, a volume published by the Specialized Appeal Court, the reason for the establishment of the Specialized Appeal Court is to harmonize the appeal system for specialized courts with the systems of the ordinary courts of first instance. Based on this, it would not be reasonable to expect that the establishment of the Specialized Appeal Court will shorten the length of time needed to conduct a lawsuit. It is true that we can expect a timely judgment from this court, at least in the first two to three years of its operation, as the number of appeals that it currently handles is still minimal.

But it is important to recognize that the appeal system for criminal cases has been changed from a two-tier to a three-tier procedure, while civil lawsuits retain the possibility of a further appeal to the Supreme Court. This raises the probability that it may now actually take longer for an IP-related lawsuit to reach a final decision. Of course, this will affect IP owners, as they may need to invest more money and time in seeing their legal matters through to a final conclusion.

Download Full Article
Related Professionals

Practices

Dispute Resolution and Litigation

Intellectual Property

Location

RELATED INSIGHTS​ 

June 16, 2026
The president of Thailand’s Supreme Court has issued new recommendations providing courts with criminal jurisdiction with a comprehensive framework for identifying and dismissing criminal cases brought in bad faith. Published in the Government Gazette on May 29, 2026, after being signed on May 25, the Recommendations of the President of the Supreme Court Concerning Bad-Faith Litigation in Criminal Cases B.E. 2569 were issued under Section 5 of the Act on the Organization of Courts of Justice. The recommendations took effect upon publication and represent a significant step in Thailand’s efforts to curb abusive criminal litigation, including strategic lawsuits against public participation (SLAPP). Background Section 161/1 of Thailand’s Criminal Procedure Code empowers courts to dismiss criminal cases filed dishonestly or with the intent to harass or take unfair advantage of a defendant. The new recommendations provide detailed guidance that courts previously lacked on identifying and handling such prosecutions. Definition of Bad-Faith Litigation Under recommendation 1, filing a criminal case in bad faith is defined broadly to encompass three categories: Harassment-type filings involving intimidation, threats, or creating unreasonable hardship for the defendant; Coercive filings designed to pressure the defendant into acting or refraining from acting for illegitimate benefit; and False or misleading filings that deliberately assert incorrect material facts or conceal such facts. Circumstances Indicating Bad Faith Recommendation 2 sets out specific circumstances that should raise a court’s suspicion that a filing may violate section 161/1. These include: Filing in a distant court far from the defendant’s domicile without benefiting the adjudication; Retaliation against the defendant’s advocacy for human rights, environmental protection, consumer rights, labor rights, or other public interests—effectively establishing an express anti-SLAPP framework; Retaliation against whistleblowers who disclosed corruption or unlawful conduct; Retaliation against individuals responsible for investigating the plaintiff’s wrongdoing or who concluded such an investigation; Filing multiple
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