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

August 20, 2012

Thailand’s Accession to the Madrid System: Possible in 2014

Subscribe to Updates
Informed Counsel

After a seven-year wait, it seems that Thailand’s accession to the Madrid System will indeed be possible by 2014. The responsible committees have made great progress on the proposed amendments to the Trademark Act, having completed the draft amendments in relation to the Madrid system in June 2012. The proposed amendments will now be forwarded to the Council of State for review. They will then go forward to the Cabinet, the Parliament, and the Senate for approval. This process will most likely take approximately one year, after which Thailand will be ready to become a member of the Madrid Protocol by 2014, as planned.

First Set of Proposed Amendments

There are two sets of proposed amendments to the Trademark Act. The first proposed amendment, which was submitted to the consideration of the Council of State in 2009, passed the first reading of the Parliament in the last quarter of 2011, and is now in the second reading stage. Some of the significant proposed amendments of the first set are listed below.

Smells and sounds. The definition of a “mark” (Section 4 of the Trademark Act) will be amended to include “smells” and “sounds.”

Distinctive marks. Distinctive marks under Section 7(2) will include shapes or three-dimensional objects which are not the natural shapes of the applied goods, are not functionally necessary and do not add value to the goods. Also, smells and sounds must not be descriptive of the applied goods, and any registrable smells must not be the result of the functioning of the applied goods.

Secondary meanings. Marks that would otherwise be unregistrable due to their lack of distinctiveness can be accepted for registration provided they have developed a secondary meaning (Section 7(3)).

Multiple-class applications. Multiple-class applications will now be allowed.

Oppositions and responses to official actions. The time period allowed for responses to official actions and appeal petitions against orders from the Registrar will be reduced from 90 days to 60 days. Along with this, the publication period for opposition purposes and the period to file counterstatements to oppositions will also be reduced accordingly. However, the time period allowed for registration fee payment will be increased from 30 days to 60 days. Additionally, responses to official actions regarding trademark assignment must be completed within 60 days, after which the application for assignment will be deemed abandoned.

License agreements. In the absence of any provision in the trademark license agreement to the contrary, a license agreement will not be terminated as a result of the transfer or inheritance of the right of the mark for which the license agreement is made.

Expiry grace periods. After the expiry date, there will be a grace period of six months for renewal of registration of a mark. A surcharge of 20 percent of the government renewal fee must also be paid by the end of the grace period.

Government fees. The government fees for some transactions will be increased.

Second Set of Proposed Amendments

The main objective of the second amendments to the Trademark Act is to allow Thailand to become a member of the Madrid Protocol and to implement the Madrid system procedures and requirements. Some of the highlighted additional proposed amendments are as follows.

International conventions. Section 11 of the Trademark Act will be amended to allow Thailand to accede to the Madrid Protocol and to accept trademark applications under other international conventions, protocols, or agreements of which Thailand is a member.

Registration of associated marks. During the first phase amendments, there was a proposal to cancel the requirement to register associated marks, but the proposal was not approved. This issue is being reexamined in the second set of amendments.

Partial assignment. Because it will no longer be necessary to register associated marks, partial assignment will be allowed.

Madrid Protocol. A new chapter will be added to the Trademark Act to allow trademark registration under the Madrid Protocol. Under this Chapter, Thailand will implement an 18-month rule for examining international trademark registration under Madrid Protocol and will introduce central attack for such registrations.

Refilling. Refilling of genuine packages will be listed as an offense under Section 110.

Refilling

In combatting counterfeit goods, one of the key challenges for brand owners in Thailand is the issue of refilling—that is, the process by which infringers will use genuine packaging or containers but fill them with their own products to mislead consumers about the origin of the goods. To address this concern, a provision regarding refilling has been re-proposed in the second amendment after it was removed from the first version. This provision will permit trademark owners to take action under the Trademark Act against infringers who rely on refilling to deceive consumers.

The draft wording of the proposed is as follows:

“Any person who uses any packaging or container bearing a trademark, certification mark, or collective mark belonging to a third party which has been registered in Thailand, with their goods or others’ goods, in order to cause the public to believe that the goods are those of the owner of the trademark or collective mark, or that the goods are under a license to use the certification mark, shall be liable to imprisonment for a term not exceeding four years, or a fine not exceeding four hundred thousand baht, or both.”

Progress for IP Owners

The pending amendments to the Trademark Act represent important steps forward for brand owners in Thailand. Many of the proposed changes introduce greater flexibility into the trademark regime, while the refilling provision will tighten up a key area that needs greater protection. Most importantly, Thailand’s upcoming entry into the Madrid system will benefit IP owners by providing new opportunities both for international companies entering the local market and for Thai brands expanding internationally.

Download Full Article
Related Professionals

Practices

Intellectual Property

Location

RELATED INSIGHTS​ 

August 13, 2026
Modern agricultural machinery is no longer purely mechanical but instead technology dependent. Modern tractors, harvesters, and other farm equipment increasingly incorporate embedded software, electronic control units, sensors, and digital diagnostic systems. While such technologies enhance efficiency, productivity, and precision farming, they also affect the manner of equipment repair and maintenance. As a result, farmers and independent repair providers may have little practical choice but to rely on authorized dealers, even for routine maintenance and repairs. Section 36 of Thailand’s Patent Act reflects the principle that the authorized sale of a patented invention usually exhausts the exclusive right of the patent owner over the specific product. This means that upon legal sale of the patented product, it can typically be used or resold without further authorization from the patent holder. This principle is relatively straightforward when applied to traditional mechanical equipment. Ownership of a machine ordinarily carries with it the practical ability to diagnose faults, replace worn parts, and restore the equipment to working order. Modern agricultural machinery, however, increasingly depends on embedded software, proprietary diagnostic systems, firmware updates, and other digital resources that may remain under the control of the manufacturer or patent holder. This tension lies within the “right to repair” debate. In the United States, on July 8, 2026, the Federal Trade Commission and five states announced a settlement with Deere & Company resolving allegations that Deere had unlawfully restricted farmers’ and independent repair providers’ ability to repair their equipment. Under the terms of the settlement, for the next ten years, Deere must provide repair resources, including software capabilities, on terms equivalent to those provided to authorized dealers. The Deere settlement highlights that the nature of ownership is changing, but legal concepts have not kept pace. Traditional patent-law concepts, including patent exhaustion, were developed with physical products
Read More
August 10, 2026
Thailand has finalized its social media KYC (“know your customer”) rules under Notification of the Electronic Transactions Commission on Measures to Prevent Technological Crimes for Social Media Service Providers (No. 2), which was published in the Government Gazette on May 5, 2026, and will take effect on November 1, 2026. While an early draft of the notification proposed requiring social media platforms to arrange identification of every user account, the final notification is significantly more targeted, focusing on paid online advertising and advertiser identity verification. Though the regulatory initiative primarily aims to combat online fraud and technology-related crimes, it also has important consequences for intellectual property enforcement, because the verified platform records that will be generated under the new requirements can help IP rights holders to identify anonymous online infringers. Key Regulatory Mandates The notification requires social media service providers to verify the identity of advertisers before their paid advertisements are published and disseminated in Thailand through social media, regardless of whether the advertising fees come from the advertisers or third parties. Verification of an advertiser is valid for one year, after which verification would have to be performed again before the platform could publish additional paid advertisements from the advertiser. Permitted verification methods are specified under the notification. A platform may verify an advertiser by checking identity evidence and confirming the connection between the advertiser and that identity evidence, with the notification giving facial comparison against certain government-issued identity documents as an example. Alternatively, platforms may verify advertisers through a digital identity verification and authentication system with an identity-proofing assurance level not lower than the level prescribed by Thailand’s Electronic Transactions Commission. The notification further requires platforms to retain only the advertiser’s information necessary to identify the advertiser, beginning from the start of the advertising activity and for
Read More
August 6, 2026
Introduction: A Trademark Paradox in Sustainable Packaging Walk into any Thai supermarket, and the label-free water bottle is no longer a novelty. Thailand’s packaging market, valued at approximately USD 15.68 billion in 2025, is shifting toward minimalist, plastic-light designs as ESG pressures reshape how brands present their products. The country generated roughly 5.68 million tons of plastic waste in 2021, with a recycling rate of only 19 percent, and regulators are now considering rules that would allow label-free bottled water relying on embossing, laser printing, or QR codes instead of wrap-around labels. As packaging itself becomes the brand identifier, a paradox emerges: designs built to say the least often struggle hardest for protection under Thai intellectual property law. The Trademark Barrier: When Shape Is Not Enough Section 7, paragraph 2(10) of the Thai Trademark Act deems a shape distinctive only if it is not the natural form of the goods, is not necessary to achieve a technical result, and does not add value to the goods. The Department of Intellectual Property’s 2022 examination guidelines apply this test conservatively, as the following examples illustrate. A plain water bottle relying on subtle contours to signal its brand is typically read as just another bottle, not a source identifier. Acquired distinctiveness offers a theoretical escape route, but it demands extensive evidence of sales, advertising, and consumer recognition—an especially heavy burden for new entrants whose minimalist packaging has not yet achieved market prominence. The result is a structural bias against precisely the design innovation that sustainability goals are meant to encourage. Design Patents: A Partial, Imperfect Substitute Design patent protection, covering a product’s shape, configuration, or ornamentation, appears to offer an alternative route. In practice, it is constrained by the same forces driving the minimalist trend. Because many brands converge on similar solutions—clear
Read More
August 4, 2026
Intellectual property (IP) protection sometimes hinges on fame and recognition. However, this alone will not always be sufficient to overcome an IP dispute when it involves contractual obligations or registered rights. Below are five cases from around the world that tackle some of the basic issues in IP registration, ownership, commercialization, and enforcement. 1. USA: Taylor Swift Trademark Application Refused Taylor Swift recently filed a trademark application to register “The Life of a Showgirl,” which is the title of her 12th studio album. When examining a trademark application, the examiner considers various factors before deciding whether it should be registered. One of these factors is whether there is a likelihood of confusion (i.e., would a regular consumer mistake the origin of the trademark). In Taylor Swift’s case, the US Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO) decided that that there would be a risk of confusion. This decision was based on the existing registered trademark, “Confessions of a Showgirl,” owned by Maren Wade, which was registered in 2015. The USPTO refused Taylor Swift’s application based on the shared key distinctive element “of a showgirl,” the lack of sufficient distinguishing terms, the marks being used in overlapping markets (entertainment and performances), and because consumers may assume a common commercial source. Maren Wade then filed a lawsuit in California against Taylor Swift and her affiliated companies, arguing that Taylor Swfit’s branding is confusingly similar in structure, wording, and overall commercial impression to her registered mark. She is also drawing on the USPTO’s refusal of Taylor Swift’s application to support her argument of a likelihood of confusion. A judgment has not yet been reached in this case, but it serves as an important reminder of the importance of satisfying the essential elements required for IP registration. 2. Australia: Katy Perry v. Katie Perry In
Read More