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 2, 2021

Thailand Strengthens Protection in the Digital Age with Latest Draft Amendment of the Copyright Act

Subscribe to Updates
Informed Counsel

Thailand’s latest draft amendment of the Copyright Act was approved by the cabinet in late 2020 and is currently being reviewed by the parliament. Although the draft is still in the legislative process, copyright owners, legal practitioners, and most importantly, internet service providers (ISPs) should be aware of some major revisions reflected in the draft in order to prepare properly prior to the actual implementation of the law, which is very likely to be within 2021.

The draft of the new law—if enacted without major additional changes—would both adjust protection terms of some copyright works and introduce a robust regime for online copyright protection. Some of the major updates in the draft are highlighted below.

Extending the Term of Protection for Photographic Works

The draft extends the term of protection for photographic works, which under the current law is 50 years after a work’s creation or first publication, to be the lifetime of the author plus 50 years after the death of the author. This lengthening of the term would put Thailand’s protection for photographic works in line with the WIPO Copyright Treaty, which aims to enhance protection of copyright works in the digital age.

ISP Safe Harbors and Notice-and-Takedown System

Section 32/3 of the current Copyright Act provides injunctive relief against online infringement for copyright owners, together with an exemption from infringement liability for ISPs. The measure introduced by this section has proved ineffective since its implementation in 2015. The new draft therefore removes this measure and includes a new section on safe harbor for the ISPs so that they are not held liable for copyright infringement committed by their users, as long as they comply with the new measures, including implementation of the notice-and-takedown system.

In laying out these new measures, the draft redefines both “service providers” and “users” to fit the new rules. It provides an extensive definition of “service providers” and divides ISPs into four types: intermediary ISPs, caching ISPs, hosting ISPs, and search engine ISPs. In addition, its definition for “users” of ISPs includes anyone who uses an ISP’s service, whether or not payment is required. Anyone who falls under one of these definitions must be aware of their rights, responsibilities and possible liabilities.

The draft also holds that in order for ISPs to be exempted from liability for copyright infringement for their provided services, they must have explicitly announced their policies to terminate services to users found to be repeated infringers, and must have maintained compliance with these policies.

In addition to these general conditions, there are specific requirements that each ISP must meet in order to be exempted from liability. Importantly, this draft adopts the notice-and-takedown system, which is comparable to the U.S.’s Digital Millennium Copyright Act.

Under this system, copyright owners who have sufficient evidence of infringement can send a notice of infringement to hosting or search engine ISPs informing them of any allegedly infringing data. An ISP that has been notified is required to take down the allegedly infringing data, its references, and access points from their system—or block access—without delay. The ISP is required to subsequently notify the alleged infringing user who posted the material to give him or her an opportunity to oppose the removal. If the user responds with a counter-notice, the ISP must notify the copyright owner and confirm with the copyright owner whether to bring the relevant data back onto the system or maintain the takedown.

These general guidelines on the notice-and-takedown process will be clarified further in additional regulations on the exact criteria, rules, and conditions for the notice and counter-notice procedures. However, ISPs can rest assured that if they comply with these steps, they will be exempt from liability—that is, they will fall into the safe harbor.

The draft also prescribes that any person who falsely files a notice or falsely files a counter-notice is liable for any damages arising from this action.

Infringement of Technological Protection Measures

The draft broadens the definition of technological protection measures (TPMs) and enumerates TPM violations. In addition, it prohibits providing services to circumvent TPMs and imposes liability against anyone who manufactures, sells, or distributes products, equipment, or services intended to circumvent TPMs. Moreover, the draft narrows the scope of exceptions for each violation. Under the current Copyright Act, the exception to liability arising from TPM circumvention only refers to the exceptions for copyright infringement—an approach viewed as too broad and not always applicable to cases of TPM circumvention. The new draft Copyright Act thus narrows the scope of exception by specifying that the exact exceptions will be enumerated in forthcoming ministerial regulations.

What It Means for Copyright Owners and ISPs

The draft amendment to the Copyright Act will equip copyright owners with broader and more up-to-date tools to tackle online copyright infringement in the new digital landscape, where much infringement of copyright has moved into the online space. ISPs will be able to rely on the safe harbor mechanism for an exemption from liability for copyright infringement, by way of their adherence to certain compliance duties. Therefore, it is important that they—as well as copyright owners and other relevant stakeholders—keep a close eye on the new developments that may arise. By doing so, these parties will together be able to prevent online copyright infringement in Thailand and lower their risk of liability.

Related Professionals

Practices

Intellectual Property

Location

RELATED INSIGHTS​ 

September 14, 2026
Myanmar’s first-to-file trademark registration regime under the Trademark Law 2019—which became fully operational in April 2023—provides mark owners with enhanced legal protection compared with the country’s former system. Correspondingly, the current system imposes more rigorous statutory requirements for obtaining, maintaining, and enforcing rights in marks. In this first-to-file trademark registration system, however, evidence of use remains particularly significant, as it may establish acquired distinctiveness, support a claim that a mark is well-known, and strengthen the owner’s position in both registration and enforcement proceedings. Accordingly, it can be said that this framework is underpinned by three key concepts: distinctiveness, well-known status, and, importantly, use of the trademark. Trademark Distinctiveness Under the Trademark Law, signs that lack distinctiveness are generally ineligible for mark protection. These signs include generic terms, basic shapes, unstylized single letters or numerals, and signs that merely describe the kind, quality, quantity, intended purpose, value, geographical origin, production time, or other characteristics of the relevant goods or services. However, a mark that would otherwise be refused on distinctiveness or descriptiveness grounds may be registrable if it has acquired distinctiveness through its use prior to the filing date. To show this, the applicant must demonstrate that the mark became distinctive to relevant consumers through continuous, exclusive, and good-faith use in trade within Myanmar. The burden of proving acquired distinctiveness rests with the mark owner. Accordingly, sufficient evidence demonstrating both use of the mark and the level of consumer recognition attained should be prepared in advance. Well-Known Mark Criteria Myanmar’s Trademark Rules, which govern the substantive examination of mark registration applications, establish criteria for determining well-known marks, aligned with international standards. Where an applicant claims well-known status—whether to overcome a refusal on relative grounds or to oppose a third party’s registration—the registrar will assess the claim based on the following
Read More
September 14, 2026
On August 23, 2026, Vietnam’s National Assembly passed Law No. 11/2026/QH16, amending the country’s Customs Law with effect from March 1, 2027. The amendments represent a substantial reform of Vietnam’s customs-based intellectual property enforcement regime. The reforms come amid considerable external pressure. In its 2026 Special 301 review, the US Trade Representative (USTR) designated Vietnam a “priority foreign country,” citing widespread counterfeiting, weak border enforcement, limited ex officio customs powers, and the absence of controls over goods in transit. Vietnam’s legislative response signals a commitment to bringing its border enforcement practices into line with international expectations. For IP rights holders operating in or through Vietnam, the amended law introduces several tools that substantially strengthen enforcement options at the border. Closing the Transit Gap One of the most consequential amendments is the extension of IP-related customs enforcement to goods in transit. Previously, Vietnam’s customs regime applied IP controls only to goods being imported or exported, a gap the USTR had specifically identified as enabling infringing goods to pass through Vietnamese ports with impunity. Vietnam’s geographic position as a logistics hub for Southeast Asia means that substantial volumes of goods transit its ports and free-trade zones. Extending enforcement to cover these shipments brings Vietnam closer to the standard set by the EU’s customs enforcement regulation and addresses a longstanding concern of multinational brand owners whose goods are frequently counterfeited in the region. Strengthened Suspension and Ex Officio Powers The amended law introduces a dual-track suspension mechanism (Article 73(2)). Customs authorities will suspend clearance upon request by an IP rights holder (or authorized representative) who provides evidence of IP ownership, evidence of infringement, and a financial guarantee. Customs can now proactively suspend clearance on an ex officio basis if, during inspection and monitoring, they discover “clear grounds” to suspect that imported, exported,
Read More
September 7, 2026
Indonesia’s Constitutional Court (Mahkamah Konstitusi) has reinstated a key provision limiting pharmaceutical patent protection, signaling a renewed commitment to balancing patent rights with public access to medicines. In its ruling to Case No. 255/PUU-XXIII/2025, the court partially granted a petition for judicial review of Law No. 65 of 2024, which had amended the country’s Patent Law, and ordered the restoration of a provision that had excluded certain pharmaceutical inventions from patentability. The decision took effect immediately upon its pronouncement at the court’s plenary session on August 28, 2026. Background The petition challenged the removal of article 4(f) from Law No. 13 of 2016 concerning Patents (Patent Law), as amended by Law No. 65 of 2024. Article 4(f) had excluded from patentability certain inventions relating to new uses of known substances. The petitioners argued that removing this provision would open the door to patent protection for second medical use inventions and facilitate patent evergreening—practices that can extend exclusivity periods, delay generic market entry, and reduce public access to affordable medicines. The petitioners included several patient advocacy and public-interest organizations: the Indonesian Dialysis Patients Community Association, the Indonesian Association of Drug Abuse Victims (PKNI), the Indonesian Pulmonary Hypertension Foundation (YHPI), the Rekat Peduli Indonesia Foundation, and the Indonesian Positive Women’s Association (IPPI), along with the Indonesia for Global Justice Association and four individual petitioners. The petitioners also challenged the constitutionality of the phrase “interested party” in article 70(1) of the Patent Law, arguing that it should be construed expressly to clarify who has standing to appeal a decision to grant a patent before the Board of Patent Appeal, and to allow a broader range of parties—such as patent holders, licensees, consumer organizations, prosecutors, aggrieved third parties, and others who may suffer direct or indirect harm from the grant of a patent—to
Read More
September 2, 2026
Thailand and China have a longstanding and significant trade relationship, which increasingly extends to e-commerce and digitally enabled supply chains. While these channels create new opportunities for businesses to reach consumers across borders, their growth also brings greater exposure to intellectual property (IP) infringement across jurisdictions and online platforms. Effective cooperation between the two countries’ enforcement authorities has therefore become increasingly important. To strengthen cooperation in this area, Thailand and China signed a memorandum of understanding (MOU) on IP enforcement in Beijing on July 20, 2026, during the Thai prime minister’s official visit to China. Officially titled “Memorandum of Understanding Between the State Administration for Market Regulation of the People’s Republic of China and the Ministry of Commerce of the Kingdom of Thailand on Cooperation in the Field of Intellectual Property Enforcement,” the MOU forms part of a broader bilateral agenda covering industrial and supply chains, participation by micro, small, and medium-sized enterprises (MSMEs), cooperation associated with the ASEAN–China Free Trade Area 3.0, and progress on the registration of Thai geographical indications in China. The MOU establishes a bilateral framework for cooperation and coordination in five broad areas: Strengthening dialogue in IP enforcement; Enhancing information sharing; Facilitating the enforcement of IP rights in cases arising in the parties’ domestic markets and on online platforms, in accordance with their respective domestic laws; Promoting cooperation in IP enforcement training and human resource development; and Undertaking other cooperation activities agreed upon by both sides. The Department of Intellectual Property (DIP) will serve as the principal coordinating agency for Thailand, while the Bureau of Law Enforcement and Inspection in China’s State Administration for Market Regulation (SAMR) will serve in that role for China. The framework is particularly relevant to the growth of e-commerce, as it covers infringement in the domestic markets and on
Read More