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

October 18, 2013

Thailand Paving the Way Toward an Innovation-Driven Economy

Bangkok Post, Corporate Counsellor Column

Industry Minister Prasert Boonchaisuk recently reiterated the government’s determination to continue promoting the Thailand Creative Economy initiative. In an attempt to rally support for Thailand’s transition to an innovation-driven country, he used rousing words such as “creative” and “sustainable” to describe his latest strategy. A three-stage, 20-year plan is now being drawn up, but it is not without its challenges.

The Three Stages

The first stage involves establishing a leading production base within ASEAN. The particular industries to be targeted have yet to be specified, but they are likely to be those related to agricultural products, energy, automotives, and electronics.

In the second stage, Thailand will develop its own intellectual property (IP) and will apply these innovations to improve production capabilities. In this way, it is hoped that Thailand can become a regional trade center from where production can be effectively managed and serviced. Additionally, Thai brands will be promoted on an ASEAN level.

The third stage involves the international development of Thai technology and brands through the support of local and regional production networks.

Potential Hurdles

The major challenge to this strategy is that foreign companies own most of the technology used in many of Thailand’s large-scale production sectors. To develop its own technologies, Thailand needs to partner with foreign companies in joint ventures or independently improve its technologies through incremental innovation.

An opportunity exists for companies in Thailand to obtain beneficial terms in partnerships with European companies through the Thai-EU Free Trade Agreement, which is now under negotiation. European owners of technology are keen to see an improvement in the IP landscape before investing further. For Thai companies, a strong IP system will provide a stable basis for growth for all, regardless of where the owner of the technology is based.

Opportunities

Thailand’s innovation must also come from within. Large enterprises such as PTT and SCG will play a key role in developing “Thai-owned” IP. They could gain an advantage over their ASEAN neighbors in the energy, chemicals and construction industries with a focus on rubber, petrochemicals and plastics, biodiesel, and ethanol.

The food science market is also an area in which Thailand can potentially dominate further. Thailand’s food export market is very strong, and global demand for consistent and reliable food sources is rising. To quote the Thai government’s Competitiveness Report of 2012:

“Research focuses on food processing and bio-based industries such as rubber and oil palm. National research centers concentrate their R&D efforts on seeds, rice, cassava, algae, post-harvest processing, greenhouse farms, longer shelf-life packaging and quality assurance. Higher-quality corn, cucumber, chili and tomato seeds have been developed for export under a Thai brand name. New types of virus-resistant prawn feed and tiger prawn brood stock have also been created.”

Innovations in crop science, food production, and supply could enable Thailand to utilize that IP itself, but also to license it to other countries. Such investments in agriculture will certainly support the “sustainability” element of the project.

Foreign pharmaceutical companies also will want to partner with local companies or the Government Pharmaceutical Organization (GPO) to produce medicines for a rapidly expanding ASEAN medical market. Bangkok is already a hub for medical tourism and improvements in medicine production, and investment in incremental innovation in this field could serve Thailand very well. Such partnerships could ensure high-quality medicines are produced, and could foster greater competition that would reduce prices. The Thai government could then embark on projects beneficial to the community, at a lower cost and with better medicines.

Ideas for the Future

To enable this to happen, the IP landscape and attitudes toward IP need to change. If IP owners cannot reasonably expect to obtain patent protection for their innovations in Thailand, then they will simply invest elsewhere. This includes Thai as well as foreign companies. Therefore, an efficient and internationally compliant patent filing system plays a significant role in moving from an efficiency-driven to an innovation-driven economy.

Incremental innovation is also best achieved by analyzing current patent landscape, followed by improvements made to “prior art” technology. Regulations must also seek to enable fast registration of products that are regulated (e.g., by the Food and Drug Administration) across all product types (and importantly, across ASEAN).

It is imperative that IP enforcement in Thailand improves, as well. We all know counterfeits of every variety are readily available in Thailand, which undeniably harms the country’s image as a destination for FDI.

In addition to legal improvements, if Thailand is to keep hold of its innovations, it must ensure that it offers favorable tax regimes for R&D and also to IP as an asset and the royalties it earns. Singapore offers lower tax rates in this regard, and Thailand may wish to follow suit to prevent businesses shifting IP assets out of the country. Certain tax breaks are already offered at the Thailand Science Park, but this policy should be expanded.

Finally, it is important that all stakeholders, including the policymakers, cooperate. The Commerce Ministry, which oversees the Department of Intellectual Property, must collaborate with the ministries of Finance, Science and Technology, Information & Communication Technology, and Public Health, to name a few. IP is present in every industry and a strong commitment to government agency cooperation improves lines of communication and presents a consistent commitment to an innovation-driven economy.

RELATED INSIGHTS​ 

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
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
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.
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