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​ 

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
July 24, 2026
As food innovation continues to accelerate, manufacturers are increasingly introducing ingredients derived from new sources, produced using novel technologies, or lacking a significant history of human consumption. While these innovations create new opportunities for the food industry, they also raise important questions regarding consumer safety. For this reason, many jurisdictions, including Thailand, the European Union, Australia and New Zealand, Canada, and Singapore, require a premarket safety assessment for novel food ingredients before they can be placed on the market. The objective of this assessment is to ensure that each ingredient is safe for its intended use and level of consumption, does not present toxicological, allergenic, microbiological, or nutritional concerns, and will not mislead consumers. Scientific authorities typically evaluate the ingredient’s identity, manufacturing process, composition, specifications, anticipated dietary exposure, toxicological information, nutritional impact, and history of use before determining whether it can be marketed. Against this background, the Thai Food and Drug Administration (FDA) recently took an important step toward improving regulatory transparency by publishing, for the first time, a consolidated public list of substances that have successfully completed the Thai FDA’s safety assessment process, including substances determined to be novel foods and those determined not to fall within the novel food category. The list identifies the approved substances, the corresponding manufacturers or importers, approval dates, and the approved conditions of use. Although the publication does not change the existing legal framework governing novel food approvals, it provides businesses with greater visibility into the Thai FDA’s regulatory precedents and the types of substances that have previously been accepted through the safety assessment process. The full announcement is available on the Thai FDA’s website. As the list is now publicly available, it also provides useful insight into the types of substances that have successfully completed the Thai FDA’s safety assessment process.
Read More