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 31, 2011

Thailand PCT National Phase

Informed Counsel

After coming into force in Thailand on December 24, 2009, the Patent Cooperation Treaty (PCT) gave patent owners additional time to enter their patents in Thailand. This resulted in a sharp reduction in applications, as some applicants took a brief hiatus, before returning in strength after the 18-month extension period ended in June 2011.

Filing Trends

Using the PCT essentially allowed patent owners to have an additional 18 months—from the non-PCT allotted period of 12 months from the first filing date, to 30 months from the first filing date under the PCT system—to decide whether, and in which countries, to file their patents.

The period from the introduction of the PCT to the first 18-month extension period (i.e., from December 24, 2009, to June 24, 2011) effectively saw a 67 percent and 68 percent reduction in the number of patent applications filed in 2010 and the first half of 2011, compared to the total number of new patent applications filed in 2009.

To illustrate this trend, the table below shows the number of new patent applications that were filed in 2009, 2010, and the first six months of 2011.

Year Invention Patent Applications
2009 5858
2010 1925
2011 (Jan-Jul) 1010

However, the ending of the 18-month extension period in June 2011 has led to a sharp recovery in the number of patent applications being filed under the PCT National Phase in Thailand. In July 2011, a total of 344 new patent applications were filed, which represents only a 30 percent reduction from the average monthly filings in 2009.

Filing Requirements

Patent owners who have filed an international PCT application, and who wish to obtain patent protection in Thailand via the PCT route, must file a national phase entry application in Thailand within 30 months from the first filing date of the basic application.

The following documents are required for submission with the PCT National Phase application:

  1. Application Form Sor Por/Or Sor Por/001-Kor (PCT)—prepared by local patent agents.
  2. Thai translation of the patent specification.
  3. A copy of the PCT Request Form (PCT/RO/101) and its Thai translation.
  4. Applicable fees.
  5. A copy of the deed of assignment.

Thai Translation of the Patent Specification

The time stipulated for the Thai translation of the patent specification has now become an issue for both the patent owners and the patent practitioners. According to the Ministerial Regulations concerning the Request for Protection of Inventions under the PCT, Clause 22 specifies that the Thai translation of a foreign-language specification must be submitted within the 30th month after the filing date of the basic application.

In this regard, it is typically recommended that the patent owner send instructions to their patent lawyer, requesting them to file the PCT National Phase and patent specification as early as possible. Many patent practitioners, including those employed within our firm, have been working with the Patent Office to seek the possibility of an extension of time for filing the Thai translation.

In response to these requests for time extensions, the Patent Office will review each case and discuss the matter internally. However, for the time being, the Patent Office has requested that if the translation cannot be completed by the deadline, then at least the title, claims, and abstract should be submitted ahead of the deadline.

It should be noted, however, that this suggestion from the Patent Office is not supported by any legislation or regulation. Therefore, if the complete translation of the description is not available for submission, it is highly likely that it will be regarded as invalid.

As a result, patent applicants would subsequently be required to file an application for restoration to revalidate the patent application, together with supporting reasons, within the stipulated time. This, in turn, will increase costs and extend the timelines for patent owners.

RELATED INSIGHTS​ 

July 24, 2026
Indonesia has updated its fee framework for intellectual property (IP)-related government services, with implications for IP owners, licensees, lenders, digital platforms, and businesses operating in the country. Government Regulation No. 30 of 2026 on Types and Tariffs of Non-Tax State Revenue Applicable to the Ministry of Law (GR 30/2026) was promulgated on July 2, 2026, and will take effect on August 1, 2026. Key Takeaways GR 30/2026, which replaces the relevant IP service fees under Government Regulation No. 45 of 2024, reorganizes the fee schedule into separate categories for copyright, industrial designs, patents, layout designs of integrated circuits, trade secrets, trademarks, geographical indications, IP enforcement, and other categories. The most commercially relevant changes include a new copyright recordation tariff exemption for songs and music, higher fees for several trademark and geographical indication services, new IP enforcement service fees, and a new fee type for registration of fiduciary security over IP rights objects. In addition, this is the first major update for trademark fees in approximately 10 years. GR 30/2026 is significant not only as a fee update but also as a further indication of Indonesia’s increasing recognition of IP as a financeable commercial asset. By expressly assigning fees to the registration of fiduciary security over IP rights objects, the regulation places IP-backed collateral filings within the Ministry of Law’s administrative service framework. While GR 30/2026 does not create a new secured-transactions regime, this development is relevant for lenders, borrowers, and IP owners structuring financing arrangements secured by trademarks, patents, copyrights, industrial designs, or other registrable IP rights in Indonesia. Copyright: New Fee Exemption for Songs and Music Recordation For copyright, GR 30/2026 creates a fee-exempt category for recordation of works or related-rights products for songs or music, while maintaining a separate category for other works and related-rights products. It
July 21, 2026
Thailand’s Ministry of Digital Economy and Society (MDES) published a notification establishing an expedited court-ordered takedown mechanism for online content in cases of “urgent necessity.” The notification, which was issued on July 17, 2026, under the Computer Crime Act B.E. 2550 (2007), as amended, took effect the following day. It significantly expands the categories of content subject to rapid government-initiated removal. Content Categories Subject to Takedown The notification defines “urgent necessity” (section 20, paragraph 5, of the Computer Crime Act) as circumstances where any delay in suppressing computer data may impact national security, religion, the monarchy, good morals, social culture, or public order. In this regard, it establishes four broad categories of content: Computer Crime Act offenses. National security offenses. IP and other criminal offenses, where it is contrary to public order or good morals and a competent officer has requested its suppression. Content contrary to public order or good morals, a broad residual category encompassing 14 subcategories approved by the Computer Data Screening Committee. The fourth category is the most expansive. Its 14 subcategories include: Content defaming, mocking, satirizing, or devaluing the monarchy. Online gambling advertising or facilitation. Offering illegal firearms for sale. Offering baraku (hookah) products or e-cigarettes for sale. Offering cannabis inflorescences or processed cannabis products for sale. Advertising or soliciting prostitution. Content inciting violence, hatred, or social division. Unauthorized overseas employment advertising. Offering boiled kratom juice for sale. Online sale or advertising of alcoholic beverages. Content satirizing or degrading Buddhism. Money lending at interest rates exceeding legally prescribed limits. Advertising or disseminating information about surrogacy services. Forgery of documents, cards, or official documents. Enforcement Procedure In cases of urgent necessity, a competent official assigned by the MDES permanent secretary must file a petition with supporting evidence to the court with jurisdiction, requesting an order to
July 15, 2026
Ambush marketing refers to a strategy in which a business associates itself with an event, campaign, or brand without paying for official sponsorship rights. The tactic is most visible in sports, concerts, and festivals, where official sponsors have invested substantially for exclusivity. Ambush marketers may use suggestive wording, event-themed imagery, athlete endorsements, venue-adjacent promotions, or social media campaigns implying a commercial connection with the event. Common Forms of Ambush Marketing Ambush marketing typically takes one of the following forms: Direct ambushing: using event names, logos, or mascots suggesting authorization Coattail ambushing: sponsoring an athlete or broadcaster connected with the event Subtle ambushing: themed advertising, venue-adjacent campaigns, or similar visual cues The legal analysis in each case turns on whether the marketing crosses from permissible event-based advertising into infringement, passing off, deception, or wrongful exploitation of goodwill, and the risk assessment is necessarily fact-specific. Thailand has no dedicated ambush marketing statute, so legality depends on execution. A campaign that merely comments on a public event may be permissible, but one that uses protected marks, creates consumer confusion, misrepresents sponsorship status, or makes unsubstantiated claims may trigger liability under various Thai laws, as laid out below. Ambush Marketing and Thailand’s Trademark Act The Trademark Act B.E. 2534 (1991) is the primary tool for addressing campaigns that use registered trademarks, event names, logos, mascots, or confusingly similar signs. The law gives registered trademark owners the exclusive right to use their mark for registered goods, and infringement risk arises when a nonsponsor uses an event mark or a confusingly similar sign in advertising. Even referential or playful use may create liability if it causes public confusion as to sponsorship or commercial connection. The law also preserves passing-off claims for unregistered marks. This matters because event names, taglines, or mascots may not always be
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