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​ 

August 13, 2026
Modern agricultural machinery is no longer purely mechanical but instead technology dependent. Modern tractors, harvesters, and other farm equipment increasingly incorporate embedded software, electronic control units, sensors, and digital diagnostic systems. While such technologies enhance efficiency, productivity, and precision farming, they also affect the manner of equipment repair and maintenance. As a result, farmers and independent repair providers may have little practical choice but to rely on authorized dealers, even for routine maintenance and repairs. Section 36 of Thailand’s Patent Act reflects the principle that the authorized sale of a patented invention usually exhausts the exclusive right of the patent owner over the specific product. This means that upon legal sale of the patented product, it can typically be used or resold without further authorization from the patent holder. This principle is relatively straightforward when applied to traditional mechanical equipment. Ownership of a machine ordinarily carries with it the practical ability to diagnose faults, replace worn parts, and restore the equipment to working order. Modern agricultural machinery, however, increasingly depends on embedded software, proprietary diagnostic systems, firmware updates, and other digital resources that may remain under the control of the manufacturer or patent holder. This tension lies within the “right to repair” debate. In the United States, on July 8, 2026, the Federal Trade Commission and five states announced a settlement with Deere & Company resolving allegations that Deere had unlawfully restricted farmers’ and independent repair providers’ ability to repair their equipment. Under the terms of the settlement, for the next ten years, Deere must provide repair resources, including software capabilities, on terms equivalent to those provided to authorized dealers. The Deere settlement highlights that the nature of ownership is changing, but legal concepts have not kept pace. Traditional patent-law concepts, including patent exhaustion, were developed with physical products
Read More
August 10, 2026
Thailand has finalized its social media KYC (“know your customer”) rules under Notification of the Electronic Transactions Commission on Measures to Prevent Technological Crimes for Social Media Service Providers (No. 2), which was published in the Government Gazette on May 5, 2026, and will take effect on November 1, 2026. While an early draft of the notification proposed requiring social media platforms to arrange identification of every user account, the final notification is significantly more targeted, focusing on paid online advertising and advertiser identity verification. Though the regulatory initiative primarily aims to combat online fraud and technology-related crimes, it also has important consequences for intellectual property enforcement, because the verified platform records that will be generated under the new requirements can help IP rights holders to identify anonymous online infringers. Key Regulatory Mandates The notification requires social media service providers to verify the identity of advertisers before their paid advertisements are published and disseminated in Thailand through social media, regardless of whether the advertising fees come from the advertisers or third parties. Verification of an advertiser is valid for one year, after which verification would have to be performed again before the platform could publish additional paid advertisements from the advertiser. Permitted verification methods are specified under the notification. A platform may verify an advertiser by checking identity evidence and confirming the connection between the advertiser and that identity evidence, with the notification giving facial comparison against certain government-issued identity documents as an example. Alternatively, platforms may verify advertisers through a digital identity verification and authentication system with an identity-proofing assurance level not lower than the level prescribed by Thailand’s Electronic Transactions Commission. The notification further requires platforms to retain only the advertiser’s information necessary to identify the advertiser, beginning from the start of the advertising activity and for
Read More
August 6, 2026
Introduction: A Trademark Paradox in Sustainable Packaging Walk into any Thai supermarket, and the label-free water bottle is no longer a novelty. Thailand’s packaging market, valued at approximately USD 15.68 billion in 2025, is shifting toward minimalist, plastic-light designs as ESG pressures reshape how brands present their products. The country generated roughly 5.68 million tons of plastic waste in 2021, with a recycling rate of only 19 percent, and regulators are now considering rules that would allow label-free bottled water relying on embossing, laser printing, or QR codes instead of wrap-around labels. As packaging itself becomes the brand identifier, a paradox emerges: designs built to say the least often struggle hardest for protection under Thai intellectual property law. The Trademark Barrier: When Shape Is Not Enough Section 7, paragraph 2(10) of the Thai Trademark Act deems a shape distinctive only if it is not the natural form of the goods, is not necessary to achieve a technical result, and does not add value to the goods. The Department of Intellectual Property’s 2022 examination guidelines apply this test conservatively, as the following examples illustrate. A plain water bottle relying on subtle contours to signal its brand is typically read as just another bottle, not a source identifier. Acquired distinctiveness offers a theoretical escape route, but it demands extensive evidence of sales, advertising, and consumer recognition—an especially heavy burden for new entrants whose minimalist packaging has not yet achieved market prominence. The result is a structural bias against precisely the design innovation that sustainability goals are meant to encourage. Design Patents: A Partial, Imperfect Substitute Design patent protection, covering a product’s shape, configuration, or ornamentation, appears to offer an alternative route. In practice, it is constrained by the same forces driving the minimalist trend. Because many brands converge on similar solutions—clear
Read More
August 4, 2026
Intellectual property (IP) protection sometimes hinges on fame and recognition. However, this alone will not always be sufficient to overcome an IP dispute when it involves contractual obligations or registered rights. Below are five cases from around the world that tackle some of the basic issues in IP registration, ownership, commercialization, and enforcement. 1. USA: Taylor Swift Trademark Application Refused Taylor Swift recently filed a trademark application to register “The Life of a Showgirl,” which is the title of her 12th studio album. When examining a trademark application, the examiner considers various factors before deciding whether it should be registered. One of these factors is whether there is a likelihood of confusion (i.e., would a regular consumer mistake the origin of the trademark). In Taylor Swift’s case, the US Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO) decided that that there would be a risk of confusion. This decision was based on the existing registered trademark, “Confessions of a Showgirl,” owned by Maren Wade, which was registered in 2015. The USPTO refused Taylor Swift’s application based on the shared key distinctive element “of a showgirl,” the lack of sufficient distinguishing terms, the marks being used in overlapping markets (entertainment and performances), and because consumers may assume a common commercial source. Maren Wade then filed a lawsuit in California against Taylor Swift and her affiliated companies, arguing that Taylor Swfit’s branding is confusingly similar in structure, wording, and overall commercial impression to her registered mark. She is also drawing on the USPTO’s refusal of Taylor Swift’s application to support her argument of a likelihood of confusion. A judgment has not yet been reached in this case, but it serves as an important reminder of the importance of satisfying the essential elements required for IP registration. 2. Australia: Katy Perry v. Katie Perry In
Read More