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

August 9, 2017

Thailand: Madrid Protocol to Take Effect on November 7, 2017

Subscribe to Updates

On August 7, 2017, the Thai Ministry of Foreign Affairs submitted its instrument of accession to the Protocol Relating to the Madrid Agreement Concerning the International Registration of Marks (Madrid Protocol) with the World Intellectual Property Organization (WIPO), making Thailand the 99th nation to become a contracting state under this international treaty and confirming its commitment to the ASEAN Economic Community Blueprint.

The Madrid Protocol will take effect in Thailand on November 7, 2017, and will enable trademark owners in the country to file a single international application designating other members under the Protocol, as well as enabling other member states’ trademark owners to designate Thailand to seek protection in the country. It should be noted, however, that the decision as to whether or not an applied mark is registrable in Thailand will still be based on the Thai Trademark Act, as amended in July 2016.

Some key characteristics of Thailand’s accession to Madrid Protocol are summarized below:

Thailand DIP as Office of Origin and Designated Office

An applicant in Thailand who chooses to file an international application with the Thai Department of Intellectual Property (DIP) must have a pending basic Thai trademark application or registration. After receiving the international application, the DIP will certify the information in the application before forwarding it to WIPO. At that stage, the applicant may choose to extend their trademark protection by requesting to designate jurisdictions under the Madrid Protocol, or wait until after receiving international registration, which should take around two months from the filing date.

There are requirements specific to Thailand for international applications. First, the list of goods for an outgoing international application should match the DIP’s list of goods of basic application/registration, bearing in mind the narrower scope of goods and services as part of the strict examination criteria of the Thai registrar. Second, incoming designations to Thailand from other countries will be examined in the Thai language according to current examination guidelines, which may require amendments to the list of goods or services for compliance with local practice.

Time Frame for Notification of Refusal in Thailand

Thailand has opted for a time period of 18 months, within which the registrar is obliged to issue a notification of refusal of international registrations. However, in the case where an opposition is raised by a third party, the DIP may still notify WIPO of a notification of refusal after the expiry of the 18-month time limit.

In comparison, registration under the national route takes about 12 to 15 months for an applicant to receive the first notification or notice of publication.

Fees and Validity of Registration

Under Thailand’s Declaration of Accession to Madrid Protocol, the government fee (individual fee) for one outgoing jurisdiction designation or one subsequent designation is THB 14,400 per class (approx. USD 420), while the government fee for renewal is THB 18,000 per class (approx. USD 520). An international application is valid for 10 years, with the possibility of renewal.

In comparison, the government fee for filing a new trademark application in Thailand under the national route is THB 9,000 per class (approx. USD 260), and the government fee for renewal under the national route is THB 18,000 per class (approx. USD 520). The government application and renewal fees are lower if the list of goods includes less than five items in one class.   

It is important to note that, while the Madrid Protocol will provide a good international registration option, it is unlikely to substantially change the way that trademark applications are examined in Thailand, with the DIP continuing to examine classification of goods and services, and the distinctiveness of trademarks, based on local laws and practices.

Related Professionals

Practices

Intellectual Property

Location

RELATED INSIGHTS​ 

July 13, 2026
When Decree No. 186/2026/ND-CP (Decree 186) takes effect on July 15, 2026, it will introduce the most significant reform of Vietnam’s administrative IP enforcement framework since Decree 99/2013/ND-CP was issued in 2013. These changes are expected to make administrative enforcement faster, more accessible, and better suited to the realities of modern IP disputes. Below are the principal reforms and their practical implications for rights holders and enforcement practitioners. The End of Notarization and Consular Legalization Among the most welcome procedural changes is the abolition of the notarization and consular legalization requirement for powers of attorney (POA) submitted in administrative enforcement proceedings. Under the previous regime, foreign rights holders were generally required to execute a POA, then have it notarized and consular legalized (if seeking customs recordal). In practice, this process frequently delayed enforcement by four to eight weeks, often long enough for infringing goods to disappear before authorities could intervene. Decree 186 removes this bottleneck, now requiring only an original or certified copy of the POA. If the document is in a foreign language, a Vietnamese translation is sufficient, provided it is certified by a competent authority or confirmed by the authorized Vietnamese IP representative. Consular legalization and notarization are no longer required. For rights holders, the practical impact is substantial. Administrative enforcement files that previously took weeks to prepare can now be completed in a matter of days, allowing much faster responses in time-sensitive matters such as warehouse raids, border interventions, and trade-fair enforcement. The decree also introduces a useful administrative simplification. Where an original POA has already been submitted to the same enforcement authority and remains valid, applicants may rely on a copy of that earlier submission by identifying the previous case file. This eliminates unnecessary duplication for rights holders pursuing multiple enforcement actions before the same
Read More
July 9, 2026
Recycling, upcycling, and refill-packaging models are now widely promoted as ways to reduce waste, lower carbon emissions, and respond to consumer demand for sustainable products. However, complications arise when these environmentally driven trends intersect with intellectual property law—particularly where reused or altered packaging continues to display third parties’ registered trademarks. Adding to this complexity, Thailand’s draft Sustainable Packaging Management Act aims to introduce new environmental compliance obligations that businesses must navigate alongside existing trademark concerns. Recycling and upcycling packaging may infringe trademark rights, especially in cases not protected by the first-sale doctrine—the principle that a trademark owner’s rights over a particular mark-bearing product end once the owner first sells it. Furthermore, even refill packaging carries legal risk due to specific statutory prohibitions under Thai law. Compounding these challenges, the draft Sustainable Packaging Management Act will impose extended producer responsibility (EPR) obligations on manufacturers and brand owners, requiring them to manage packaging throughout its lifecycle. These overlapping legal frameworks could deter manufacturers from pursuing ESG-aligned business models unless businesses understand how to navigate both trademark and environmental requirements. Under Thai law, this issue remains uncertain because the Trademark Act does not expressly codify the first sale doctrine, also known as the exhaustion of trademark rights. Generally, this doctrine provides that once a trademark owner has lawfully sold goods bearing its trademark, the owner’s right to control further resale of those particular goods is exhausted. The rationale is that the owner has already received commercial benefit from the first authorized sale; therefore, the purchaser should be free to resell or otherwise dispose of the goods. Although the doctrine is not expressly codified in the Trademark Act, Thai courts have recognized it in relation to genuine goods and parallel imports, as seen in a Supreme Court Judgment No. 2817/2543 in which the
Read More
July 6, 2026
Indonesia’s regulation on reporting online intellectual property (IP) infringement provides comprehensive procedural guidance for IP rights holders and their licensees in reporting online infringement complaints. Issued in December 2025 by the Ministry of Law as Regulation No. 47 of 2025 regarding Handling of Intellectual Property Infringement Reports in Electronic Systems, this regulation covers all types of IP rights. It also specifies documentation when reporting infringement, and lays out the procedures for examination, verification, and enforcement actions. Submission of Complaints Complainants may submit reports through the online system of the Directorate General of Intellectual Property (DGIP) or in person at the DGIP office. Complaints may also be filed through an authorized proxy. Under the regulation, complainants are required to provide the following information and documents: Personal details of the complainant; Brief description of the protected work or subject matter (i.e., type of IP and name or address of the infringing website, portal, account, or application, or a link to the location of the infringing content); Complete description of the alleged infringement; Certificate of registration or recordal of the relevant IP; Recordal of IP license agreement, if any; and Other supporting evidence. Verification and Examination Process Upon receiving a complaint, the responsible formality officer may request clarification or additional supporting documents. In the latter case, the complainant must then submit the necessary administrative documents within 14 days of the notification date. Once the documentation is deemed complete and sufficient, the case will be formally registered. Subsequently, the DGIP will establish a verification team to handle online IP violations, which will include the Civil Servant Investigator (PPNS), the Ministry of Communication and Digital Affairs, experts with relevant expertise in IP, and representatives from related associations such as AVISI (Indonesian Video Streaming Association). After examining the report, the team will prepare the Minutes
Read More
June 30, 2026
Customs recordation is an enforcement mechanism in Myanmar that enables intellectual property (IP) rights holders to seek prevention of the cross-border movement of infringing goods. The enactment of Myanmar’s IP laws in 2019 has enabled customs recordation for registered marks and copyrights under the Trademark Law 2019 and the Copyright Law 2019. By contrast, the Patent Law 2019 and the Industrial Design Law 2019 do not provide a practical framework for customs recordation, and accordingly such rights are not subject to the customs recordation regime. Under the Trademark Law 2019, rights holders may apply for customs recordation and may also ask the Customs Department to suspend the release of goods suspected of bearing counterfeit marks. Likewise, the Copyright Law 2019 allows for customs intervention in relation to pirated works. These provisions reflect Myanmar’s gradual alignment with international standards on border measures, although the implementation framework remains at a relatively early stage of development. Customs Recordation Pursuant to the Trademark Law 2019 and the Copyright Law 2019, the relevant authorities have issued customs rules concerning the protection of registered marks and copyrights. In practice, the process generally begins with the submission of an application to the Customs Department together with supporting documentation. This typically includes proof of registration in Myanmar; details of the rights holder, applicant, and any authorized representative; and a comprehensive description of the genuine goods. Product identification materials—such as photographs, packaging samples, and distinguishing features—are particularly important in helping customs officers identify suspected infringing goods. A recordation remains valid for two years from the date of approval. It may be renewed for additional two-year terms, provided that the renewal application is filed within the thirty days prior to expiry for marks and up to thirty days in advance of the expiry date for copyrights, in accordance with
Read More