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​ 

July 21, 2025
Distinctiveness is a fundamental requirement for a trademark’s registration and protection under Thai law. The Thai courts typically assess distinctiveness based on a mark’s inherent characteristics rather than its use, as proving acquired distinctiveness through use requires substantial evidence, including the duration of use, extent of distribution and promotional efforts. However, the Intellectual Property and International Trade Court (IP & IT Court) has recently ruled that the figurative mark WEPLAY had acquired distinctiveness through use – an uncommon ruling under Thai trademark law. Subsequently, the Court of Appeal for Specialised Cases affirmed the mark’s inherent distinctiveness based on a holistic assessment of its components. This article discusses the criteria for proving both inherent and acquired distinctiveness, offering examples from both courts to provide valuable insights into case preparation and understanding of how the courts assess distinctiveness. Background In 2017 the plaintiff filed a trademark application for the mark depicted below for goods in Class 28, including toy building blocks: The registrar rejected the application on the grounds of non-distinctiveness under Section 7 of the Trademark Act. The plaintiff appealed to the Board of Trademarks, which considered that, when the term ‘weplay’ is used for goods in Class 28, it is descriptive of the nature of the goods applied for as “playthings”. Therefore, ‘weplay’ was deemed nondistinctive under Section 7, Paragraph 2(2) of the Trademark Act. IP & IT Court decision In 2024 the IP & IT Court ruled that the term ‘weplay’ is not a coined or invented word; instead, it is a combination of ‘we’ and ‘play’, conveying the meaning of ‘we play’. When the term is used for goods in Class 28, it describes the nature of the goods as “playthings”. Consequently, the mark was deemed non-distinctive. However, the court considered the evidence presented by the plaintiff,
Read More
July 14, 2025
Life sciences specialists from Tilleke & Gibbins have updated the firm’s guide to pharmaceutical data exclusivity regulations and practices in Southeast Asia. This guide contains quick-reference information on the availability of data exclusivity protections and limitations in Cambodia, Indonesia, Laos, Malaysia, Myanmar, Thailand, and Vietnam. Developing and launching a new drug on a commercial scale requires an enormous amount of time and investment in research and development (R&D), including pre-clinical testing and clinical trials. When considering the aggregate amount of drug development costs, it is important to recognize that this includes not only the investment in developing new drugs that get approved by a government food and drug regulator and are successfully brought to market, but also the R&D expenditures on a large number of potential pharmaceutical compounds and products that never actually make it to market. In particular, considerable investment is required in order to conduct and produce clinical trial data—to prove safety, efficacy and effectiveness of a new drug—that would warrant marketing approval by the regulatory authority. Such data is proprietary in nature and highly valuable for a research-based pharmaceutical company that develops an original drug. On the other hand, patent law typically confers generic drug manufacturers with the ability to engage in various preparatory activities with a view to obtaining marketing approval for a generic product before the patent for the original drug expires (commonly known as a “Bolar provision”). Since a generic drug maker may submit an application for marketing approval of a generic product before the relevant patent expires, the extent to which the drug originator’s data submitted to the regulatory authority is protected—or in other words, the extent to which the generic company may rely on the drug originator’s previously filed data, which underpins the safety and efficacy of the drug, to support
Read More
June 30, 2025
Vietnam is making notable strides in decentralization, aiming to grant greater autonomy to local government entities to streamline administrative procedures. As part of this effort, the government issued Decree No. 133/2025/ND-CP on decentralization of state management of the Ministry of Science and Technology dated June 12, 2025 (Decree 133). Effective from July 1, 2025, Decree 133 decentralizes and delegates numerous state management functions—including in intellectual property (IP) and technology transfer—to provincial-level People’s Committees (PCs). This reform signals a profound shift in how IP rights are administered and enforced across Vietnam. While this offers new opportunities for IP owners, agents, and innovators, it also introduces additional operational complexities. Impact on IP and Technology Transfer Decree 133 significantly reallocates responsibilities in IP and technology transfer, primarily to provincial-level PCs. Provincial PCs and other provincial authorities are now empowered to handle a wide range of tasks, including but not limited to the following: Issuance of duplicates and reissuance of certificates of registration. Registration of license agreements for the transfer of usage rights for industrial property objects (e.g., trademarks, patents) and recording amendments, extensions, or early terminations of such agreements. Enforcing decisions on compulsory licensing of patent use rights. Evaluation and approval of technology transfer contracts—a key step in facilitating localized technological advancements. Permitting the establishment of foreign-invested scientific organizations and their branches, to encourage foreign direct investment in local R&D and technology development. Approval of provincial-level R&D tasks, aligning with local socio-economic development priorities. Legal Implications The decentralization and delegation brought forth by Decree 133 carry several significant legal implications: Echoing Decree 133, the Intellectual Property Office of Vietnam issued Notification No. 2351/TB-SHTT on June 26, 2025, announcing the cessation of 19 administrative procedures at the national level. Specifically, from July 1, 2025, the IP Office will no longer accept requests related
Read More
June 27, 2025
Three American giants are actively protecting their intellectual property rights against generative AI, as two legal battles commence on both sides of the Atlantic. In the UK, Seattle-based media company Getty Images accuses UK-based Stability AI of multiple IP infringements. In the US, The Walt Disney Company and Universal Studios are teaming up against Midjourney, an AI startup, with their main ground being copyright infringement. Both cases are centered around questions legal minds have been posing since the introduction of generative AI: Is the output of generative AI an infringement? And who is ultimately responsible for the output, the platform or the user? Getty Images v. Stability AI Getty initially filed a claim in the High Court in 2023, which resulted in Stability applying for reverse summary judgment on the grounds that Getty had no real prospect of success, arguing that their operations took place outside the UK. However, the High Court judge hearing the case decided that the claims brought by Getty did have a real prospect of succeeding in court. Despite this, Stability saw a small victory when the court ruled that the representative action brought by Getty would not succeed due to the difficulties in identifying who qualified for the class. The proposed class was comprised of 50,000 rightsholders who alleged their rights were also infringed. Stability was successful in arguing that identifying these individuals would be challenging due to the unclear definition of the class. This current trial is centered around four main grounds: Copyright infringement. Getty accuses Stability of using content that Getty owns or has an exclusive license for when training their model, Stable Diffusion, resulting in the generated output containing substantial parts of that content. Getty is also alleging secondary copyright infringement, arguing that Stability is importing an article into the UK
Read More