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

September 6, 2022

Thailand Issues New Rules on Customs Recordation and Seizure of Counterfeit Goods

Subscribe to Updates

The Thai Customs Department has issued a notification that changes the customs recordation system and the customs procedures for the seizure of counterfeit and pirated goods. Customs Notification on the Export, Import, and Transit of Trademark- and Copyright-Infringing Goods was published in the Government Gazette on August 4, 2022, and had gone into effect on July 29, 2022.

Previously, trademark owners seeking customs recordation needed to record the relevant information with the Department of Intellectual Property (DIP), but under the new notification, both trademark and copyright owners can record their intellectual property information with the Customs Department directly.

The system and procedures established by the notification are detailed below.

Customs Recordation System

Trademark or copyright owners (or their representatives) may file an application specifying any information that customs officers can use to verify the authenticity of goods being exported, imported, or transited through Thailand. The application can be filed with the Enforcement Division of the Customs Department.

The information in the application will be kept for three years from the date of receipt (or for the remaining period of trademark or copyright protection, if less than three years). Renewals can be filed no later than 30 days before the expiry date.

Any changes in information must be made with the Enforcement Division.

Ex Officio Impounding Procedure

When customs officers suspect any goods of infringing intellectual property rights according to the information recorded, they will impound the goods and inform the exporter, importer, or transit person (or agent) as well as the trademark or copyright owner. If the customs officers cannot contact the exporter, importer, or transit person (or agent), or if this person does not oppose the action within three days, the impounded items will be deemed infringing goods.

Importantly, if the exporter, importer, or transit person admits that the goods are infringing, the officers will prepare a memorandum of inspection and seizure or arrest and then forward the case to the litigation unit for further action. Under the new procedures, the officer does not require a confirmation letter from the rights owner in this case.

To object, the exporter, importer, or transit person (or agent) must file an opposition with evidence that the goods are not infringing within three days of acknowledging the notice sent by the officers. The officers will then inform the rights owner of the opposition, and the rights owner may pursue the case by filing a confirmation letter and a petition for prosecution within three days, or the impounded goods will be released. Rights owners may also request an extension of up to 10 days, but they may be asked to furnish a bond against any damage arising from the extension request.

Inspection Requests on a Case-by-Case Basis

Rights owners can also apply on a case-by-case basis for customs inspections of goods suspected to be infringing their trademark or copyright. If the customs officers have no suspicions about the correctness of the documents submitted with the inspection request, the officers will impound the goods and notify the exporter, importer, or transit person (or agent) as well as the applicant. Upon receiving the notification, the applicant must coordinate with the customs officers to inspect the goods within 24 hours. Otherwise, the customs officers will release the impounded goods.

After the inspection, the customs officer will direct the rights owner (or its representative) to file a confirmation letter and a petition for prosecution within three days of the inspection if they do not want the goods to be released. The exporter, importer, or transit person can then make an admission or objection as described in the previous section.

Liability

Rights owners who apply for customs recordation or an inspection request are responsible to the exporter, importer, or transit person (or agent) and the Customs Department for any damages arising from the customs officers’ inspection carried out in good faith in accordance with the application.

Key Takeaways

As the legislation has changed to mandate that customs recordation applications go to the Customs Department, any information previously recorded with the DIP is now considered to be expired. Therefore, trademark and copyright owners are encouraged to file for customs recordation under this new system in order to ensure border control against infringing goods.

The new system of the Customs Department is expected to be launched around the end of September. In the meantime, rights owners should prepare the required documents in preparation for filing their applications under the new system.

For more details or assistance regarding this customs recordation change, or on any aspect of protecting intellectual property in Thailand, please contact Tilleke & Gibbins at [email protected].

Related Professionals

Practices

Intellectual Property

Location

RELATED INSIGHTS​ 

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
June 10, 2026
For multinational franchisors operating in Thailand, a key risk after franchise termination is that former outlets may continue operating in ways that could easily mislead consumers into believing they remain within the authorized network. To justify such operations, former franchisees often argue that the termination was invalid or ineffective. As a result, these cases are often treated as contractual disputes, making it difficult for franchisors to obtain injunctive relief before a final judgment confirms that the termination was lawful. Franchisors face significant commercial and reputational harm during lengthy proceedings, including consumer confusion, disruption to franchise restructuring, and damage to brand reputation and customer trust. In an encouraging development, the Thai court in a 2025 case responded to the problem of unauthorized post-termination franchise operations by granting interim relief, recognizing broader brand and consumer harm, and awarding substantial damages, highlighting a successful litigation strategy of framing the dispute not merely as a contractual termination issue but as trademark infringement causing ongoing commercial injury. The Subway Case From December 2024 to mid-2025, an unauthorized “Subway®” franchise operation in Thailand attracted substantial public and media attention. Reports and online discussions about unauthorized Subway® stores circulated widely after complaints arose about food quality and customer experience at certain outlets that were allegedly operating after their franchise rights had expired. Because these stores continued to use Subway® trademarks, trade dress, and overall commercial appearance, many consumers were unable to distinguish them from authorized operations, resulting in reputational risks and customer confusion that affected the franchisor’s brand and franchise system in Thailand. Subway treated this matter with the utmost seriousness and moved promptly to protect its brand, franchise system, and customers. It filed a civil action with the IP&IT Court seeking a permanent injunction and damages. During the proceedings, the court granted a preliminary injunction
Read More
May 22, 2026
Intellectual property specialists from Tilleke & Gibbins in Vietnam have contributed an updated Intellectual Property Transactions in Vietnam overview for Thomson Reuters Practical Law, an online publication that provides comprehensive legal guides for jurisdictions worldwide. The Vietnam overview was authored by Linh Thi Mai Nguyen, Thanh Phuong Vu, Chi Lan Dang, Son Thai Hoang, and Duc Anh Tran. The chapter provides a high-level examination of key aspects of IP transactions law in Vietnam, including IP assignment and licensing, research and development collaborations, IP in mergers and acquisitions (M&A), lending and taking security over intellectual property rights, settlement agreements, employee- and consultant-created IP, competition law, taxation, and non-tariff trade barriers. Key topics covered in the chapter include: IP assignment: Basis and formalities for assignments of patents, utility models, trade marks, copyright, design rights, trade secrets, confidential information, and domain names in Vietnam. IP licensing: Scope, formalities, and recordal requirements for licensing patents, trade marks, copyright, design rights, and trade secrets. Research and development collaborations: Treatment of improvements, derivatives, and joint ownership of IP, including exploitation and enforcement issues. IP aspects of M&A and security: Due diligence, warranties, transfer formalities, and taking security over intellectual property rights. Practical Law, a legal reference resource from Thomson Reuters, publishes a range of guides for hundreds of jurisdictions and practice areas. The Intellectual Property Transactions Global Guide is a valuable resource for legal practitioners seeking comparative insight into transactional IP issues across multiple jurisdictions. To view the latest version of the Intellectual Property Transactions in Vietnam overview, please visit the Practical Law website and enroll in the free Practical Law trial to gain full access.
Read More
May 13, 2026
Laos has significantly broadened its industrial property administrative review framework, most notably by extending it to cover copyright and related rights for the first time. Decision No. 0306/IC on the Administrative Resolution of Disputes Concerning Industrial Property Registration, New Plant Variety Registration, and Copyright and Related Rights Recordation took effect on April 24, 2026, replacing the previous rules from 2023, which had covered only industrial property and new plant variety matters. Decision No. 0306/IC governs how Laos’ Department of Intellectual Property (DIP) and provincial offices handle formal challenges to industrial property registrations and applications. The proceedings covered include oppositions to pending applications, appeals of refused applications, requests for cancellation of existing registrations, and—newly—disputes concerning the recordation and interpretation of copyright and related rights. These administrative proceedings within the DIP are heard by a government-appointed Administrative Dispute Resolution Committee, which functions similarly to the opposition and review boards found in other jurisdictions. Key Changes Decision No. 0306/IC covers four categories of administrative proceedings: Oppositions: Third-party challenges to a pending industrial property application before it is granted. Refusal appeals: Challenges to the DIP’s decision to refuse their application. Cancellation or deletion requests: Applications to invalidate an existing registered right on the grounds that it should not have been granted. Copyright and related rights disputes: Challenges to or interpretations of copyright and related rights recordations, including determinations of whether a work qualifies for copyright protection under Lao law. The most significant development is the committee’s new jurisdiction over copyright matters. The committee is now empowered to resolve disputes concerning copyright and related rights recordation—this includes the authority to determine whether a work qualifies for copyright protection and to interpret the scope of an existing recordation. Parties who believe a competitor has improperly recorded copyright over a work, or who wish to contest
Read More