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​ 

June 24, 2026
Patent enablement requirements are provided under Article 102 of Vietnam’s Law on Intellectual Property (IP Law). In particular, a patent specification must “fully and clearly disclose the nature of the invention to such an extent that, based on the specification, a person having ordinary skill in the relevant art can implement the invention.” In pharmaceutical and biotechnology patents, this requirement is more complicated and subject to more rigorous assessment. The Patent Examination Guidelines (Guidelines) of the Intellectual Property Office of Vietnam (IP Office) were amended in March 2026 to introduce Annexes III and IV for the pharmaceutical and biotechnology sectors, in which Annex III provides detailed guidelines on the assessment of specification requirements. These amendments were made under a project for strengthening capacity in industrial property examination between the Japan International Cooperation Agency (JICA) and the IP Office. Annex III provides detailed instructions on how examiners assess enablement in a pharmaceutical or biotechnology application, and offers examples of acceptable and unacceptable descriptions with regard to the enablement aspect. Enablement Requirements in Pharma and Biotech Patents Article 12.7 of Circular 10/2026/TT-BKHCN (Circular 10) adds to the requirements of Article 102 of the IP Law that the description must demonstrate the novelty, inventive step, and industrial applicability of the technical solution. For pharmaceutical composition subject matters, Article 12.9 of Circular 10 sets out that the description must present the results of clinical trials and/or the pharmacological effects of the claimed pharmaceutical composition, and must include at least the following information: Substance/mixture used. Testing method (system) employed. Information on the test results. Correlation between the pharmacological effects obtained from the tests and the application of the pharmaceutical product in the prevention, diagnosis, and treatment of diseases. The Guidelines note that pharmacological study results should be presented in a quantified manner, and pharmacological
Read More
June 16, 2026
Since the implementation of the Trademark Law 2019 on April 1, 2023, Myanmar has operated under a modern first-to-file trademark system that brings its registration framework closer to international practice. As the new regime continues to develop in practice, applicants are increasingly required to navigate formal examination requirements, substantive objections, and procedural deadlines with greater precision. This article provides a high-level review of the trademark examination process in Myanmar, focusing on the principal stages from initial review to approval, the types of objections commonly raised by the Intellectual Property Department (IPD), and the key considerations for responding effectively. A clear understanding of these issues is essential for applicants seeking to secure registration efficiently and to mitigate avoidable delays or refusals. Examination Process: Key Stages Trademark applications filed with the IPD undergo two stages of review. Formality Examination The IPD first verifies compliance with procedural requirements, including: Correct Nice Classification Clear mark representation Accurate applicant details Clearly defined goods or services Representative details, if the application is filed by a representative Other formality requirements cover translation and transliteration of any non-English or non-Myanmar elements in the mark, color claim details, applicable disclaimers, and payment of official fees. Deficiencies result in an office action requiring correction within 30 days, which may be extended upon request. Registrability Examination The IPD also assesses registrability. A mark may be refused if it: Lacks distinctiveness Is descriptive or generic Misleads the public or violates public order/morality Contains prohibited state symbols Only compliant applications proceed to publication. Responding to Office Actions Applicants must respond within 30 days of notification from the IPD. Depending on the nature of the objection, strategies may include submitting legal arguments for distinctiveness, providing evidence of acquired distinctiveness, filing appropriate disclaimers, clarifying descriptions such as color claims, or amending the listed goods
Read More
June 15, 2026
The surge in AI development has led to a desperate demand for large, high-quality training data. However, real-world data can be expensive to collect, difficult to access, and often subject to strict privacy and regulatory constraints. Synthetic data, which consists of artificially generated records that replicate the statistical properties of real-world data without reproducing specific individuals’ information, provides an appealing solution by generating artificial datasets at scale without relying on identifiable personal information. It combines speed, cost efficiency, and regulatory compliance, making it a sensible alternative for organizations seeking to reduce risks while maintaining data utility. When properly anonymized, synthetic datasets may fall outside the scope of laws such as the EU’s General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR) or Thailand’s Personal Data Protection Act (PDPA), reducing compliance burdens while still supporting high-quality model training. However, relying on synthetic data without rigorous legal due diligence could be a strategic mistake. It replaces one set of known risks (scraping, direct privacy liability) with a new set of complex liabilities. The narrative that synthetic data is a “silver bullet” for privacy and IP compliance is dangerous and could be misleading. While synthetic data addresses data scarcity, it also introduces new legal uncertainties. Legal counsel should anticipate downstream risks arising from compromised data sources. Models trained on unlawfully obtained data may need to be decommissioned, even if their outputs appear lawful. What is synthetic data? Synthetic data refers to artificially generated information created using AI techniques such as deep learning and generative models. Instead of copying real records, it reproduces the statistical patterns and relationships found in the original dataset. Synthetic data generally falls into three categories: Fully synthetic data – Entirely new data points generated from learned patterns. The model studies the structure of the original data and produces records that resemble real-world
Read More
June 10, 2026
In March 2026, the Intellectual Property Office of Vietnam (IP Office) issued a decision refusing a trademark application after considering an opposition based primarily on copyright grounds. The outcome is noteworthy because the foreign brand owner had neither trademark registrations nor applications in Vietnam at the time the opposition was filed, and the IP Office has historically applied a stringent approach to oppositions relying on copyright. The Opposition Maurten is a well-known Swedish sports nutrition brand recognized globally for its innovative hydrogel technology, which is designed to help endurance athletes fuel more effectively without gastrointestinal discomfort. The brand’s distinctive logo is characterized by clean lines and a bold black-and-white color scheme, and has long been associated with the company’s performance products. The brand’s logo is displayed above. An identical mark was filed for registration by a Vietnamese trademark squatter. In 2023, a Vietnamese individual filed an application for registration of an identical mark (Application No. 4-2023-38668), a practice commonly observed in Vietnam as trademark squatting. The brand owner engaged Tilleke & Gibbins to assist with strategy and filing an opposition to the mark. At the time, Maurten had no trademark rights or meaningful use in Vietnam, and global marketing data showed only modest figures without any local presence. Thus, to convince the IP Office to refuse the squatter’s application, instead of relying on trademark rights or use evidence, the opposition strategy centered on the copyright protection of the logo itself, as copyright arises automatically in Vietnam upon creation of the work and does not require registration. (It is worth noting, however, that the IP Office has traditionally been cautious in accepting copyright as a basis for refusing trademark applications.) On September 24, 2024, an opposition was filed on three main grounds: confusing similarity, copyright infringement of the artistic work,
Read More