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

June 24, 2024

Thailand: Ruling Clarifies “Lawful Basis” for Processing Certain Personal Data

Subscribe to Updates

In March 2024, a Thai court of first instance handed down a decision in a personal data protection case against an insurance company in Thailand. The landmark ruling has important implications for the disclosure of special categories of personal data.

The case concerned an individual, acting as the plaintiff, who filed a claim against an insurance company, as a data controller, and its representatives, for collecting, using, and disclosing the results of the plaintiff’s blood alcohol level test, along with a photo of the plaintiff taking the test, without explicit consent, resulting in his insurance claim being rejected. The company also disclosed the data to the insured party, who is the plaintiff’s family member, causing the plaintiff to suffer reputational damage, discrimination, humiliation, and ill treatment.

Since results of a blood alcohol level test are considered a special category of personal data pursuant to section 26 of the Personal Data Protection Act B.E. 2562 (2019) (PDPA), the plaintiff filed the claim with the criminal court, requesting that the criminal penalties under the PDPA and the Penal Code be imposed on the defendants, and that the defendants delete or destroy the plaintiff’s personal data. The insurance company argued that it had disclosed the test results and the photograph to the plaintiff’s family member—as the insured under the insurance agreement—for the purpose of informing the insured of the rejection of the insurance claim.

Considering these facts and reasons, the criminal court ruled that the processing of this special category of personal data was necessary for the defense of the insurance company’s legal claims pursuant to section 26(4) of the PDPA, and therefore, explicit consent was not required. As a result, the criminal court dismissed the case.

Key Takeaways

While this case was dismissed, it indicates that explicit consent is not the only legal basis for processing a special category of personal data, and data controllers are able to process personal data as long as there is a lawful purpose and an appropriate legal basis to achieve that purpose. This case also suggests that data subjects are now becoming more aware of their rights in regard to privacy and personal data, which could increase the likelihood of more cases being brought before the courts.

As this ruling was made by the court of first instance, it might be appealed.

For more information on the interpretation of the PDPA, or on any aspect of data compliance in Thailand, please contact Nop Chitranukroh at [email protected], Nopparat Lalitkomon at [email protected], Gvavalin Mahakunkitchareon at [email protected], or Wilin Somya at [email protected].

Related Professionals

RELATED INSIGHTS​ 

August 21, 2025
タイ商標法において、識別性は商標登録および商標の保護における基本的要件である。タイの裁判所では、商標の使用ではなく、商標固有の特性に基づいて識別性を評価するのが一般的である。これは、使用を通じて獲得された識別性を証明するには、使用期間、流通範囲、宣伝広告活動など、実質的な証拠が必要となるためである。 しかしながら、知的財産・国際貿易裁判所（IP & IT裁判所）は最近、図形商標「weplay」が使用を通じて識別性を獲得したとの判決を下した。これはタイ商標法では異例の判決である。その後、特別控訴裁判所（Court of Appeal for Specialised Cases）は、商標の構成要素を総合的に評価した結果、商標の固有の識別性を認めた。 本記事では、固有の識別性と獲得された識別性の両方を証明するための基準について説明し、両方の裁判所の事例を示して、訴訟の準備と裁判所が識別性を評価する方法の理解に役立つ貴重な洞察を提供する。 [1] 背景 2017年、原告は、玩具ブロックを含む第28類の商品について、以下に示す商標について商標出願を行った。 登録官は、商標法第7条に基づき識別力がないという理由で出願を拒絶した。原告は商標委員会に審判請求し、商標委員会は、「 weplay 」という用語が第28類の商品に使用されている場合、「遊具」という出願された商品の性質を記述していると判断した。したがって、「 weplay 」は商標法第7条第2項(2)に基づき識別性がないと判断された。 [2] 知的財産・国際貿易裁判所の判決 2024年、知的財産・国際貿易裁判所は、「weplay 」という用語は造語ではなく、「we」と「play」を組み合わせたもので、「私たちは遊ぶ」という意味を伝えるものであるとの判決を下した。この用語が第28類の商品に使用されている場合、その商品の性質が「遊び道具」であることを説明していることになる。したがって、出願商標を識別力がないと判断した。 しかしながら、裁判所は原告が提出した証拠を検討したところ、原告はタイで10年以上にわたり当該製品を販売していたことが示されていた。請求書、オンラインおよび印刷カタログ広告、その他の文書を含むこれらの証拠は、タイにおいて10年以上にわたる広範な製品流通および広告と並行して、商標が継続的に使用されていたことを裏付けていた。当該証拠により、当該商標が付された商品が広く販売、流通、および広告されていたことが決定的に立証された。したがって、当該商標は、商標法第7条第3項に基づき、継続的な使用を通じて識別性を獲得したと判断された。こうして、第一審裁判所である知的財産・国際貿易裁判所は、当該商標は登録されるべきである旨の判決を下した。 その後、両当事者は控訴した。 [3] 控訴決定 2025年2月26日、特別控訴裁判所は、問題の商標が次の2つの重要な要素から構成されていると認定した。 単語「weplay」 珍しい色の組合せを有する丸みのある形をした図形 「weplay」という用語は記述的というより暗示的であり、消費者により商品と関連付けるには解釈が必要となると判断された。図形要素と組み合わせることで、商標全体として、消費者が商品を認定し識別することができる識別性を有する。したがって、本商標は、商標法第7条第1項及び第2項(8)に定める識別力の基準を満たしている。 したがって、特別控訴裁判所は、出願商標は本質的に識別力があるという結論を下した。 [4] コメント この事例は、タイの裁判所が包括的なアプローチを採用し、商標の識別性を評価するためのより動的な枠組みの構築に貢献していることを浮き彫りにしている。また、使用を通じて獲得された識別性を考慮する傾向が高まっていることを示しており、商標訴訟においてより柔軟な要素となっている。   本記事についてのご質問などは、Mr.Nuttaphol Arammuangまでお問合せください。   備考：本和文は英文記事を翻訳したものです。原文については、以下のリンクをご参照ください。 Thai Court Finds Acquired Trademark Distinctiveness through Use in Rare Decision
Read More
August 21, 2025
On August 19, 2025, the Trade Competition Commission of Thailand (TCCT) released its draft Guidelines on the Consideration of Unfair Trade Practices and Conduct Constituting Monopoly, Reducing Competition, or Restricting Competition in Multi-Sided Platform Businesses in the Category of Digital Platforms for the Sale of Goods or Services (E-commerce). A public comment period on the guidelines is open until September 18. The draft provides the first detailed framework for how the TCCT will interpret and enforce the substantive provisions under the Trade Competition Act against digital platforms, which have a unique network effect and require complex competition analysis. This development will profoundly impact the operations of e-commerce platforms, sellers, and associated service providers in Thailand. The guidelines primarily target e-commerce digital platform business operators, which are defined as follows: E-commerce digital platform: A medium facilitating the sale, purchase, or exchange of goods or services, including any operations to create transactions or interactions between business operators via an electronic transaction system, regardless of whether service fees are charged. E-commerce digital platform business operator: A service provider of a digital platform for the sale of goods or services who acts as an intermediary facilitating the sale of goods or services, including any operations to create transactions or interactions through an electronic transaction system by receiving orders for goods or services transacted via an electronic system, whether in the form of an e-marketplace, a social marketplace, or any other form that connects purchase orders for goods or services with business operators through an electronic system. Prohibited Conduct The guidelines classify potentially anticompetitive conduct and unfair trade practices into two categories: price-related and non-price-related conduct. 1. Price-related conduct The TCCT is targeting pricing strategies that can harm competition. Key prohibited behaviors include: Price below cost: Setting prices below the average total cost without
Read More
August 21, 2025
Although the “passing off” principle has sometimes faced criticism for potentially broadening trademark protection—particularly in cases involving unregistered or unconventional marks like shapes, scents, or sounds—it serves an essential purpose. It safeguards the rights of business owners and shields consumers from deception, ensuring fair competition and reflecting the realities of modern commerce. What is passing off, and why is registrability not required? The passing-off principle is a legal concept rooted in English law, aimed at preventing a person from falsely representing or using a mark similar to another’s in a way that causes consumers to mistakenly believe the goods or services come from the same source. Under Thai law, the passing-off principle is provided under Section 46 of the Thai Trademark Act, which states: No person shall be entitled to bring legal proceedings to prevent or to recover damages for the infringement of an unregistered trademark. The provisions of this Section shall not affect the right of the owner of an unregistered trademark to bring legal proceedings against any person for passing off goods as those of the owner of the trademark. The passing-off principle can be interpreted as a practical legal concept. It does not require proof that the mark is registrable or meets the registrability criteria under trademark law. It is sufficient to show that the mark has established goodwill and that the other party’s use of a similar mark is likely to confuse consumers, making it a straightforward and effective tool for protecting brand assets. Requiring a claimant to prove that an unregistered mark could have been registered would undermine the very function of passing off. The doctrine was conceived precisely to fill the gaps left by the registration system. Imposing registrability criteria would nullify its function and leave many commercially valuable identifiers unprotected. If the
Read More
August 21, 2025
On August 18, 2025, Thailand’s Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC), in collaboration with the Ministry of Finance, the Anti-Money Laundering Office, and the Ministry of Tourism and Sports, announced the launch of TouristDigiPay. The initiative, implemented under the SEC’s Regulatory Sandbox, allows foreign tourists to convert digital assets into Thai baht for use in everyday transactions in Thailand. Foreign tourists who opt to participate in TouristDigiPay must open two accounts once they are in Thailand: An account with a licensed digital asset operator to sell or exchange digital assets for Thai baht; and A tourist wallet account with a licensed e-money operator regulated by the Bank of Thailand. Funds from digital asset sales will be transferred into the tourist wallet, enabling tourists to make payments at participating merchants that accept e-money. Key Regulatory Requirements The TouristDigiPay project will operate for a period of up to 18 months, with the following conditions: Only licensed digital asset brokers, dealers, and exchanges integrated with licensed e-money operators are eligible to participate. Operators must implement anti-money laundering (AML) protocols that are proportionate to the assessed risk level. These include: Conducting know-your-customer and customer-due-diligence (KYC/CDD) checks on all users. For monthly transactions exceeding THB 50,000 per person, verifying the source of the digital assets and assessing AML risk using internationally recognized blockchain forensic tools or equivalent procedures. Suspending or rejecting services if digital assets are transferred from wallets flagged for AML concerns. Ensuring that conversion between digital assets and fiat includes safeguards such as matching account names and returning digital assets only to the original wallet. The following transaction limits apply to participants in the TouristDigiPay initiative: Payments to small vendors are capped at THB 50,000 per month. Payments to vendors who have completed the know-your-merchant (KYM) process are capped at THB 500,000 per
Read More