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

July 7, 2016

Thailand: Trademark Act Reacts to Refilling and Reuse of Packaging and Containers

Subscribe to Updates
World Trademark Review

In a trademark infringement that is endemic in Thailand, genuine containers and packaging bearing the mark of a legitimate trademark owner are refilled with illicit contents and reused by third parties. These are then sold in the marketplace and are intended to deceive the public into believing that the goods are genuine.

Combatting Refilled Products

Trademark owners often favor taking criminal action for trademark forgery (involving refilling) over civil action. However, pursuing a criminal action is not without its problems as many legal practitioners and academics have publically challenged its efficacy, asserting that forgery of a trademark requires actual production of a fake trademark on fake goods or packaging.

Under these criteria, the use of genuine packaging or containers that bear the mark of a legitimate trademark owner is not considered as forgery of a trademark, even without authorization. Also, due to the influence of public opinion, enforcement authorities are hesitant to assist trademark owners with criminal enforcement actions against packaging or containers refilled with fake goods under the Trademark Act.

This compounds the difficulties stemming from the infringement, which already tarnishes the reputation of original trademark owners and in some cases poses a grave health hazard to consumers when products for consumption are involved, such as used glass bottles refilled with fake liquor that may be poisonous. Other examples include:

  • used plastic bottles refilled with poor-quality lubricant;
  • used printer cartridges refilled with toner or ink products which can emit toxic fumes; and
  • used bottles of sauce refilled with fake sauce.

As a result, instead of pursuing a criminal action for trademark forgery, trademark owners often tackle refilling through Section 272(1) of the Penal Code, which provides for criminal action against an offender using the name, mark or any wording of another in the carrying out of its trade.

Although criminal enforcement is possible through the Penal Code, the penalty is relatively low – a maximum of one-year imprisonment and/or a fine of up to THB 2,000 may be imposed on the infringer. Consequently, infringers are unafraid of committing the offence of refilling, particularly as the court will reduce the penalties by half if the infringer pleads guilty. Imprisonment has mostly been suspended.

Penalties

The National Legislative Assembly recently passed a trademark bill which was published in the Royal Gazette  on April 29, 2016. The law will be enacted on July 28, 2016 (90 days after publication). Section 109/1 of the amended Trademark Act specifies that a person who reuses packaging or containers bearing another’s registered trademarks to mislead the public into believing that the goods are produced by the trademark owner will be liable to imprisonment of up to four years and/or a fine of not more than THB 400,000.

Interestingly, the penalty for this offence is identical to the penalty for forgery of a trademark in Section 108 of the Trademark Act. This amendment confirms that refilling or reusing genuine packaging or containers with fake goods constitutes trademark infringement under Thai trademark law.

However, for there to be liability under this section, infringers must have intended to mislead the public into believing that the refilled packaging contains goods produced by the trademark owner. If the alleged infringer refills or reuses the packaging with a different product, infringement may not be deemed to have occurred. Therefore, a key factor to prove infringement is demonstrating that an infringer intended to pass off its product as that of another.

Although Thailand’s amended trademark law confirms that the unauthorized refilling or reusing of another’s packaging or containers with fake goods constitutes infringement (if passing-off intention can be established), it is yet to be seen what methods infringers will use to avoid liability. In any event, the collection of evidence and strategic planning, together with cooperation between trademark owners and their legal counsel, will continue to serve as an effective means of trademark enforcement.

Download Full Article
Related Professionals

Practices

Intellectual Property

Location

RELATED INSIGHTS​ 

September 30, 2026
Packaging is a valuable commercial asset that helps consumers identify and distinguish products through their shape, colors, graphics, labels, and overall presentation. Obtaining legal protections for these assets is thus an important step. Businesses entering into or operating in the Myanmar market should assess whether trademark protection, industrial design protection, or both provide the strongest IP strategy for these features. The country’s Intellectual Property Department (IPD) under the Ministry of Commerce now administers trademark and industrial design registrations since Myanmar’s modernization of its intellectual property framework through the enactment of four key IP laws in 2019. Trademark Protection for Packaging Under the Trademark Law 2019, a “mark” is any visually perceptible sign, including words, names, letters, numerals, figurative elements, color combinations, or combinations of these signs, capable of distinguishing one undertaking’s goods or services from another’s. Trademark protection may therefore extend to certain elements of product packaging that function as source identifiers. Depending on their presentation and distinctiveness, packaging elements such as brand names, logos, labels, configurations, color combinations, and three-dimensional (3D) shapes may qualify for trademark protection. However, under the current practice of the IPD and its available examination guidelines, the packaging and  trade dress (including product get-up) are not expressly recognized as separate registrable subject matter in Myanmar. Under the Trademark Law 2019, trademark infringement—including unauthorized use of a registered mark on packaging—may give rise to civil remedies, including injunctions and damages, as well as criminal penalties. A 3D mark may protect packaging shape or configuration if it has acquired distinctiveness through use and consumers associate it with the relevant products. However, a shape dictated by a functional or technical purpose is ineligible for registration. Registration of a 3D mark may be renewed indefinitely for successive ten-year periods, subject to compliance with renewal requirements. Industrial Design Protection
Read More
September 30, 2026
Under Thailand’s Patent Act B.E. 2522 (1979), any person may raise the invalidity of a patent as a matter of defense. However, the right to initiate court proceedings to cancel a patent is reserved exclusively for an “interested person” or the public prosecutor. This distinction between merely challenging validity and initiating judicial revocation proceedings has given rise to a significant body of Supreme Court (Dika) jurisprudence interpreting who qualifies as an “interested person” under the Patent Act. Statutory Framework Section 54 of the Patent Act provides that any invention patent granted not in compliance with the patentability requirements will be invalid, and that a petition to cancel such a patent may be submitted to the court by any “interested person” or the public prosecutor. Section 64 mirrors this provision for design patents, and section 65 novies extends the same framework to petty patents. However, none of these provisions defines the term “interested person,” leaving its interpretation to the courts. Supreme Court Interpretation The Thai Supreme Court has developed a consistent body of case law establishing that an “interested person” must be someone directly affected by the existence of the patent—not simply any member of the public. In 1989, the court found (Dika No. 2670/2532) that a party whose intended use of the patented technology was still in a preparatory stage—before actual manufacturing had commenced—did not qualify as an interested person. However, in 2009 the Supreme Court further elaborated  (Dika No. 2906/2552) that an interested party is one whose rights to utilize the invention are restricted by virtue of the patent, such as a manufacturer or producer whose operations are directly impacted by the patentee’s exclusive rights. In the 2008 case of T.M. Grating Steel Co., Ltd. v. Billion Mass Industry Co., Ltd. (Dika No. 974/2551), where the plaintiff had
Read More
September 24, 2026
Vietnam is implementing and developing a broad package of regulatory reforms that could reshape how IP, data, digital platforms, and product authenticity are regulated and enforced. Several of the key measures have been led by the Ministry of Public Security in its legislative and administrative capacity, as part of a broader government effort. The core reform package consists of four key legal instruments: proposed amendments to the Criminal Code, a proposed new Data Security Law, a draft Decree on Product Identification, Authentication and Traceability, and the newly enacted Decree No. 330/2026/ND-CP. These instruments include rules on criminal enforcement, data security, electronic identification, product identification and traceability, administrative violations, and cybersecurity sanctions. Combined, these measures will affect copyright enforcement, industrial property rights, trade secrets, AI training data, product provenance, online takedowns, valuation of counterfeit goods and electronic evidence. It is worth noting that, in addition to strengthening criminal penalties for IP crimes, Vietnam’s emerging regulatory framework increasingly treats infringement, data misuse, product authentication, and platform-enabled violations as interconnected regulatory and enforcement challenges. For rights holders and foreign investors, this could mean stronger tools against counterfeiting and online infringement, but also more compliance obligations around data, traceability, AI, platform controls and government-facing reporting. Expansion of Criminal IP Enforcement Proposed amendments to Article 225 of the Criminal Code would expand criminal copyright exposure beyond reproduction and distribution to cover large-scale commercial public performance and online communication of works, phonograms and video recordings. This is important because piracy is increasingly about streaming, unauthorized communication, and platform access models rather than physical copying. Aggravated copyright infringement could be subject to up to 10 years in prison for individuals and fines of up to VND 6 billion (about USD 228,300) for commercial legal entities. The amended Article 226 would expand criminal industrial property liability beyond
Read More
September 21, 2026
Thailand’s first-to-file trademark system has a serious vulnerability: it lacks both an explicit mechanism for refusing bad-faith registrations and any means of invalidating them in court after the five-year limitation period has expired. While brand owners worldwide confront trademark squatting, Thailand’s statutory silence stands out, particularly in light of AIPPI’s 2017 Resolution Q249, which recommended that every jurisdiction provide clear tools to address bad faith at all stages of the trademark lifecycle. Nearly a decade later, Thailand has yet to act. This article proposes a concrete reform blueprint, drawing on the legislative models of China, the United Kingdom, and the European Union. The Statutory Gap Under the Thai Trademark Act B.E. 2534, no provision expressly authorizes examiners to reject an application on grounds of bad faith. Section 8(10) addresses well-known marks but offers no relief where the targeted mark lacks well-known status. Practitioners have resorted to Section 8(9)—which bars marks “contrary to public order, morality, or public policy”—as a workaround. However, this provision was designed to address the characteristics of the mark itself, not the applicant’s intent. Thai Supreme Court decisions have split on whether it can reach bad-faith conduct, creating persistent legal uncertainty. The gap extends beyond examination. Civil actions to cancel a bad-faith registration must be brought within five years—a deadline that frequently expires before foreign brand owners discover the squatted mark. Cancellation through the Board of Trademarks remains available but is slow, costly, and subject to court appeal, leaving bad-faith registrations in force during protracted proceedings. The system effectively rewards squatters and penalizes legitimate owners. Lessons from International Best Practices Several major jurisdictions have already closed this gap. China’s 2019 amendment to Article 4 of the Trademark Law introduced an absolute ground for refusal: “bad faith trademark applications without intent to use shall be rejected.” Bad
Read More