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, 2026
Thailand’s Ministry of Digital Economy and Society (MDES) published a notification establishing an expedited court-ordered takedown mechanism for online content in cases of “urgent necessity.” The notification, which was issued on July 17, 2026, under the Computer Crime Act B.E. 2550 (2007), as amended, took effect the following day. It significantly expands the categories of content subject to rapid government-initiated removal. Content Categories Subject to Takedown The notification defines “urgent necessity” (section 20, paragraph 5, of the Computer Crime Act) as circumstances where any delay in suppressing computer data may impact national security, religion, the monarchy, good morals, social culture, or public order. In this regard, it establishes four broad categories of content: Computer Crime Act offenses. National security offenses. IP and other criminal offenses, where it is contrary to public order or good morals and a competent officer has requested its suppression. Content contrary to public order or good morals, a broad residual category encompassing 14 subcategories approved by the Computer Data Screening Committee. The fourth category is the most expansive. Its 14 subcategories include: Content defaming, mocking, satirizing, or devaluing the monarchy. Online gambling advertising or facilitation. Offering illegal firearms for sale. Offering baraku (hookah) products or e-cigarettes for sale. Offering cannabis inflorescences or processed cannabis products for sale. Advertising or soliciting prostitution. Content inciting violence, hatred, or social division. Unauthorized overseas employment advertising. Offering boiled kratom juice for sale. Online sale or advertising of alcoholic beverages. Content satirizing or degrading Buddhism. Money lending at interest rates exceeding legally prescribed limits. Advertising or disseminating information about surrogacy services. Forgery of documents, cards, or official documents. Enforcement Procedure In cases of urgent necessity, a competent official assigned by the MDES permanent secretary must file a petition with supporting evidence to the court with jurisdiction, requesting an order to
Read More
July 15, 2026
Ambush marketing refers to a strategy in which a business associates itself with an event, campaign, or brand without paying for official sponsorship rights. The tactic is most visible in sports, concerts, and festivals, where official sponsors have invested substantially for exclusivity. Ambush marketers may use suggestive wording, event-themed imagery, athlete endorsements, venue-adjacent promotions, or social media campaigns implying a commercial connection with the event. Common Forms of Ambush Marketing Ambush marketing typically takes one of the following forms: Direct ambushing: using event names, logos, or mascots suggesting authorization Coattail ambushing: sponsoring an athlete or broadcaster connected with the event Subtle ambushing: themed advertising, venue-adjacent campaigns, or similar visual cues The legal analysis in each case turns on whether the marketing crosses from permissible event-based advertising into infringement, passing off, deception, or wrongful exploitation of goodwill, and the risk assessment is necessarily fact-specific. Thailand has no dedicated ambush marketing statute, so legality depends on execution. A campaign that merely comments on a public event may be permissible, but one that uses protected marks, creates consumer confusion, misrepresents sponsorship status, or makes unsubstantiated claims may trigger liability under various Thai laws, as laid out below. Ambush Marketing and Thailand’s Trademark Act The Trademark Act B.E. 2534 (1991) is the primary tool for addressing campaigns that use registered trademarks, event names, logos, mascots, or confusingly similar signs. The law gives registered trademark owners the exclusive right to use their mark for registered goods, and infringement risk arises when a nonsponsor uses an event mark or a confusingly similar sign in advertising. Even referential or playful use may create liability if it causes public confusion as to sponsorship or commercial connection. The law also preserves passing-off claims for unregistered marks. This matters because event names, taglines, or mascots may not always be
Read More
July 13, 2026
When Decree No. 186/2026/ND-CP (Decree 186) takes effect on July 15, 2026, it will introduce the most significant reform of Vietnam’s administrative IP enforcement framework since Decree 99/2013/ND-CP was issued in 2013. These changes are expected to make administrative enforcement faster, more accessible, and better suited to the realities of modern IP disputes. Below are the principal reforms and their practical implications for rights holders and enforcement practitioners. The End of Notarization and Consular Legalization Among the most welcome procedural changes is the abolition of the notarization and consular legalization requirement for powers of attorney (POA) submitted in administrative enforcement proceedings. Under the previous regime, foreign rights holders were generally required to execute a POA, then have it notarized and consular legalized (if seeking customs recordal). In practice, this process frequently delayed enforcement by four to eight weeks, often long enough for infringing goods to disappear before authorities could intervene. Decree 186 removes this bottleneck, now requiring only an original or certified copy of the POA. If the document is in a foreign language, a Vietnamese translation is sufficient, provided it is certified by a competent authority or confirmed by the authorized Vietnamese IP representative. Consular legalization and notarization are no longer required. For rights holders, the practical impact is substantial. Administrative enforcement files that previously took weeks to prepare can now be completed in a matter of days, allowing much faster responses in time-sensitive matters such as warehouse raids, border interventions, and trade-fair enforcement. The decree also introduces a useful administrative simplification. Where an original POA has already been submitted to the same enforcement authority and remains valid, applicants may rely on a copy of that earlier submission by identifying the previous case file. This eliminates unnecessary duplication for rights holders pursuing multiple enforcement actions before the same
Read More
July 9, 2026
Recycling, upcycling, and refill-packaging models are now widely promoted as ways to reduce waste, lower carbon emissions, and respond to consumer demand for sustainable products. However, complications arise when these environmentally driven trends intersect with intellectual property law—particularly where reused or altered packaging continues to display third parties’ registered trademarks. Adding to this complexity, Thailand’s draft Sustainable Packaging Management Act aims to introduce new environmental compliance obligations that businesses must navigate alongside existing trademark concerns. Recycling and upcycling packaging may infringe trademark rights, especially in cases not protected by the first-sale doctrine—the principle that a trademark owner’s rights over a particular mark-bearing product end once the owner first sells it. Furthermore, even refill packaging carries legal risk due to specific statutory prohibitions under Thai law. Compounding these challenges, the draft Sustainable Packaging Management Act will impose extended producer responsibility (EPR) obligations on manufacturers and brand owners, requiring them to manage packaging throughout its lifecycle. These overlapping legal frameworks could deter manufacturers from pursuing ESG-aligned business models unless businesses understand how to navigate both trademark and environmental requirements. Under Thai law, this issue remains uncertain because the Trademark Act does not expressly codify the first sale doctrine, also known as the exhaustion of trademark rights. Generally, this doctrine provides that once a trademark owner has lawfully sold goods bearing its trademark, the owner’s right to control further resale of those particular goods is exhausted. The rationale is that the owner has already received commercial benefit from the first authorized sale; therefore, the purchaser should be free to resell or otherwise dispose of the goods. Although the doctrine is not expressly codified in the Trademark Act, Thai courts have recognized it in relation to genuine goods and parallel imports, as seen in a Supreme Court Judgment No. 2817/2543 in which the
Read More