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

March 14, 2019

Thailand Poised to Adopt Plain Packaging for Tobacco Products

Subscribe to Updates
World Trademark Review

In a recent notification by the Public Health Minister, Piyasakol Sakolsattayathorn, it was announced that the Ministry of Public Health’s National Tobacco Control Committee has approved a draft regulation requiring plain packaging to replace all current packaging for tobacco products. The stated reason for the change is concern that the current guidelines are no longer effective at addressing and combatting the health risks posed by tobacco products.

Thailand’s history with graphic health warnings (GHWs) on tobacco products—which spans more than 25 years—began in 1992 when it first mandated that GHWs cover 25% of product packaging. In the following years Thailand increased the GHW requirement to 33% in 1997, and 50% in 2005. Thailand further restricted tobacco companies’ ability to market tobacco products in 2006 by banning the use of descriptors such as mild, medium, and light. Then, in 2011, Thailand increased the scope of the descriptor ban to also restrict words and phrases indicating the smell, taste, or quality of tobacco products (e.g., crisp, fresh, and mint). The current legal guidelines require tobacco products to display graphic health warnings covering 85% of the packaging.

The Public Health Minister has stated that plain packaging will be standard for all brands of cigarettes and will prohibit the use of distinctive logos or colors on packaging, including the use of brand images and promotional text. Brand owners will be required to display brand names and product names in a standard color and font style to be prescribed by the regulation. These changes are designed to further reduce the desirability of tobacco products by making them look as unattractive as possible.

This change will make Thailand the first country in Asia and the 11th in the world to adopt plain packaging legislation in an attempt to further discourage cigarette smoking. This regulation has obvious consequences for brand owners in the tobacco industry in that it will reduce their ability to market and distinguish their brands through use of their registered intellectual property. This may have the unfortunate consequence of inadvertently promoting the use of counterfeit products in the marketplace, by removing many of the barriers to entry that distinctive product packaging imposes on manufacturers of knock-off products. Standardizing all product packaging will make it easy for counterfeiters to replicate well-known brands, increasing the likelihood that consumers will be unable to distinguish between genuine and counterfeit products. As a result, unknowing consumers may face increased health risks from the use of untested products of dubious origin.

The new regulation may be vulnerable to challenge by trademark owners as an unfair taking without compensation based on their property interest in their registered intellectual property. Section 44 of the Thai Trademark Act provides a positive right to use a registered trademark: “a person who is registered as the owner of a trademark shall have the exclusive right to use it for the goods for which it is registered.” Unlike the trademark laws of some other jurisdictions which grant only a negative right to exclude infringing uses by others, the Thai Trademark Act grants a positive right to use a registered mark, conferring a property interest to the trademark owner. As a result, owners of registered trademarks for tobacco products are likely to challenge the application of the new law.

The new regulation is expected to come into effect on September 12, 2019.

 

This article was first published by World Trademark Review on February 5, 2019 and is reproduced here with thanks.  

Download Full Article
Related Professionals

Practices

Intellectual Property

Location

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
Read More
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