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​ 

July 27, 2026
Vietnam’s new E-Commerce Law, which took effect on 1 July 2026 along with its implementing Decree No. 248/2026/ND-CP (Decree 248), marks a significant development in the country’s approach to online intellectual property (IP) enforcement, reflecting a clear shift from a reactive model of intermediary liability to one that expects platforms to play a more active role in preventing infringement. From notice-and-takedown to platform responsibility The most significant change introduced by the E-Commerce Law is the transformation of the legal role of e-commerce platforms. The existing safe harbor provisions under the IP Law and the copyright notice-and-takedown regime established by Decree 17/2023/ND-CP (Decree 17) largely required intermediaries to act only after receiving notice of infringement. Once infringing content had been removed, the platform’s legal obligation was generally considered fulfilled. The new legislation adopts a fundamentally different approach. Article 17 of the E-Commerce Law requires intermediary platforms to screen information relating to goods and services before publication in order to prevent listings involving counterfeit or IP-infringing goods, and goods of unknown origin. Rather than relying exclusively on complaints from rights holders, platforms are now expected to implement preventive measures before infringing listings become publicly available. Decree 248 further requires platforms to update keyword filters based on recommendations issued by competent authorities. These filtering mechanisms are intended to prevent prohibited listings from appearing on the platform and represent a further move away from a purely complaint-driven enforcement model. The legislation also introduces Vietnam’s first statutory stay-down obligation. Under the E-Commerce Law and Decree 248, major digital platforms must maintain automated systems capable of reviewing, warning against, and removing unlawful listings while also implementing measures to prevent repeat violations, defined under Decree 248 as conduct that has previously been identified and handled by the platform, but continues to recur. This obligation addresses one
Read More
July 27, 2026
Tilleke & Gibbins’ intellectual property specialists have authored the Thailand chapter of Trade Secrets 2026 from Chambers and Partners. This global guide examines the legal frameworks governing trade secret protection, enforcement, and litigation across jurisdictions worldwide. The Thailand chapter provides a comprehensive overview of the country’s legal regime for protecting confidential business information, covering the legal framework, trade secret misappropriation, litigation procedures, remedies, and dispute resolution. Some topics covered include: Protectable trade secrets Reasonable measures to maintain secrecy Employee confidentiality Trade secret licensing Civil and criminal remedies Litigation procedures and injunctions Damages and other remedies Mediation and arbitration The guide also examines practical issues relating to safeguarding trade secrets, defending against allegations of misappropriation, and managing trade secret disputes in Thailand. Chambers and Partners’ Global Practice Guides provide in-house counsel with authoritative commentary on practical legal issues affecting business, enabling readers to compare legislation and procedures across multiple jurisdictions. The Thailand chapter of Trade Secrets 2026 is available as a PDF through the button below. The full guide can be accessed for free on the Chambers and Partners website.
Read More
July 27, 2026
In March 2025, Thailand’s Central Intellectual Property and International Trade Court (IP&IT Court) issued a landmark judgment in favor of Luckin Coffee, China’s leading retail coffee chain. The judgment marked a significant turnaround following earlier trademark litigation involving Luckin Coffee from 2021 to 2023 that had generated widespread public attention and raised questions about the protection available to legitimate foreign brand owners in Thailand. In a significant subsequent development, Thailand’s Court of Appeal for Specialized Cases has now affirmed the IP&IT Court’s judgment in its entirety. The appellate decision brings clarity to one of Thailand’s most closely watched trademark disputes. Significantly, this is the first case in Thailand to formally recognize the trademark squatting principle. The Court of Appeal confirmed that Luckin Coffee has a better right to the disputed mark and ordered cancellation of the defendants’ trademark registration—a key application of the “better right” doctrine. The court also upheld the substantial damages awarded at first instance, providing important guidance on assessing harm from systematic trademark squatting. Award-Winning Judgment Affirmed in Its Entirety The significance of the first-instance judgment extended beyond the outcome for Luckin Coffee. The IP&IT Court judgment was subsequently recognized in the IP&IT Court’s Distinguished Judgment Awards in 2025, reflecting the complexity, novelty, and legal significance of the issues considered in the case. The defendants nevertheless appealed the judgment, challenging several key aspects of the IP&IT Court’s decision. Luckin Coffee continued to entrust Tilleke & Gibbins as their sole attorney to pursue the case at the appellate level. After considering the defendants’ appeal and Luckin Coffee’s submissions in response, the Court of Appeal affirmed the first-instance judgment in its entirety. The judgment was announced on July 8, 2026. Better Right to the Marks The Court of Appeal confirmed Luckin Coffee’s superior rights. The orders include cancellation
Read More
July 24, 2026
As food innovation continues to accelerate, manufacturers are increasingly introducing ingredients derived from new sources, produced using novel technologies, or lacking a significant history of human consumption. While these innovations create new opportunities for the food industry, they also raise important questions regarding consumer safety. For this reason, many jurisdictions, including Thailand, the European Union, Australia and New Zealand, Canada, and Singapore, require a premarket safety assessment for novel food ingredients before they can be placed on the market. The objective of this assessment is to ensure that each ingredient is safe for its intended use and level of consumption, does not present toxicological, allergenic, microbiological, or nutritional concerns, and will not mislead consumers. Scientific authorities typically evaluate the ingredient’s identity, manufacturing process, composition, specifications, anticipated dietary exposure, toxicological information, nutritional impact, and history of use before determining whether it can be marketed. Against this background, the Thai Food and Drug Administration (FDA) recently took an important step toward improving regulatory transparency by publishing, for the first time, a consolidated public list of substances that have successfully completed the Thai FDA’s safety assessment process, including substances determined to be novel foods and those determined not to fall within the novel food category. The list identifies the approved substances, the corresponding manufacturers or importers, approval dates, and the approved conditions of use. Although the publication does not change the existing legal framework governing novel food approvals, it provides businesses with greater visibility into the Thai FDA’s regulatory precedents and the types of substances that have previously been accepted through the safety assessment process. The full announcement is available on the Thai FDA’s website. As the list is now publicly available, it also provides useful insight into the types of substances that have successfully completed the Thai FDA’s safety assessment process.
Read More