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

November 5, 2012

Thailand’s Draft Tobacco Consumption Control Act: Plain Packaging and Beyond

Subscribe to Updates
Informed Counsel

Australia will soon be the first nation to require all tobacco products to be sold in plain packaging. From December 1, 2012, tobacco packaging will be standardized for all manufacturers; photographic health warnings will occupy 75% of the front and 90% of the back of the packaging, and product names will appear in a uniform font in the remainder of the pack, which itself must be colored olive green. No famous logos, other branding, trademarks, or colors can be applied. The plain packaging laws are just one of several measures that are intended to reduce smoking, in line with Australia’s “healthiest nation” ambition, by 2020. Other measures include a 25% tax increase and reductions in duty-free allowances.

The justification given by the Australian government is that tobacco branding leads to an uptake in smokers and reinforces their commitment to smoking itself. The counterargument is that branding is simply about differentiating the brands, and brand loyalty must not be confused with any addictive nature of the product. There is therefore an issue over whether plain packaging rules are justifiably bundled together with the more usual measures designed to discourage smoking, such as health warnings and photos, tax increases, and tightening of duty-free allowances.

Thailand already has some of the strictest tobacco regulations in the world. For example, all packs include graphic health warnings that cover 55% of the front and back of the pack, smoking is banned in most places, and tobacco products are not allowed to be advertised or marketed at all. In the wake of Australia’s legislation, it seems that Thailand’s Ministry of Public Health may also be considering introducing plain packaging. A current draft Tobacco Consumption Control Act is set to introduce more restrictions, including the government dictating the design of tobacco product packaging and facilitating the introduction of plain packaging here in Thailand. There are certain advertising and marketing restrictions which will impinge on trademark rights, primarily draft Article 40, which would be the instrument through which the plain packaging requirement is introduced once further Ministerial Regulations are enacted by the Ministry of Public Health dictating how tobacco products are to be packaged. Giving wide-ranging power to the Ministry, draft Article 40 states that the package must “have the size, color, symbol, label including the character of the displaying of trademark, symbol, picture, and message in compliance with the criteria as notified by the Ministry of Public Health.”

However, it is draft Article 31 which will likely be the most troubling for trademark owners, as it serves as a broad-reaching prohibition of advertising which goes beyond the existing language prohibiting display of the name or trademark of tobacco products. The new language prohibits use of the importer’s or manufacturer’s name or trademark and includes a ban on all “advertising or marketing communications.”

Additionally, draft Article 32 goes even further by prohibiting the display of tobacco product names or trademarks or tobacco product importer or manufacturer names or trademarks on any other products. Ostensibly, this would mean that, if a mark is used for tobacco products or if a trademark is registered in International Class 34 for tobacco products or smokers’ articles, then that mark or trademark cannot be used on any products and the sale of any such products is banned. 

As this debate pushes ahead, there are some important legal and practical issues that need to be given full consideration.

Constitutional Issues

Due to the lack of regulatory impact assessments evidencing any correlation between use of trademarks on tobacco and social problems of smoking, such a ban would not be proportional under the Constitution. The Constitution protects property and grants people the liberties to engage in an enterprise or an occupation and to undertake fair and free competition.

Section 41 of the Constitution of the Kingdom of Thailand B.E. 2550 (2007) provides that the “property right of a person is protected.” Section 86 specifically refers to intellectual property as being protected by the Constitution, as follows:

Section 86

The State shall pursue directive principles of State policies in relation to science, intellectual property and energy, as follows: . . .

(2) to promote inventions or discoveries leading to new knowledge, preserve and develop local knowledge and Thai wisdom and protect intellectual property; . . . (emphasis added)

Section 43 carries on with the fundamental principles by guaranteeing that a person shall enjoy the liberties to engage in an enterprise or an occupation and to undertake a fair and free competition. When Thai laws and regulations are enacted which prevent a trademark owner from using its valuable trademarks and/or which dictate how a Thai business may market or advertise its goods and services, this tends to impinge on Section 29 of the Constitution, the so-called “proportionality principle” that the public damage exceeds the benefits gained, which holds that:

Section 29

The restriction of such rights and liberties as recognized by the Constitution shall not be imposed on a person except by virtue of the law specifically enacted for the purpose determined by this Constitution and only to the extent of necessity and provided that it shall not affect the essential substances of such rights and liberties.

Trademark – Rights to Use and Value

Trademarks provide substantial benefits to their owners in terms of asset value, licensing value, assignment value, and overall goodwill. Importantly, trademarks differentiate the goods of one business from the goods of others, thereby conferring an important valuable benefit to Thai consumers by enabling them to differentiate goods from one company versus another. Just because a good is a controversial product, it does not mean that the important trademark function of indicating quality of a product should not still be afforded to both the public and the trademark owner.

By registering a trademark, the trademark owner has obtained the exclusive rights to use and license the use of the trademark in Thailand. The Thai Trademark Act sets out the trademark owner’s right to use the trademark:

Section 44

. . . a person who is registered as the owner of a trademark shall have the exclusive right to use it for the goods for which it is registered.

A ban on use of trademarks on tobacco products would serve to disallow trademark owners’ use of their trademarks and put those trademarks at risk of being cancelled for non-use.

 Indeed, as Thailand prepares for accession to the Madrid Protocol system for the international registration of trademarks (currently planned for mid to late 2013), Thai companies may choose to use this new international trademark application system as their businesses grow and expand into new overseas markets. However, if their original Thailand trademark is cancelled for any reason, including for non-use, then this will amount to a “central attack” and their equivalent trademarks in those other countries will be cancelled as well.

Thailand’s International Obligations Under WTO Treaties

In addition to the protection that valuable trademarks belonging to a business enjoy under Thai law, they are also protected under international treaties, including the World Trade Organization (WTO) Agreement on Trade-Related Aspects of Intellectual Property Rights (TRIPS). Thai laws and regulations controlling the use of trademarks would bring into question Thailand’s obligations under various articles of TRIPS, including Article 20 which prohibits unjustifiable encumbrances on the use of a trademark in the course of trade.

Australia is currently dealing with the consequences of enacting plain packaging in the WTO, as three countries have formally requested WTO consultations with Australia regarding its plain packaging measure. In fact, on September 28, 2012, the WTO Dispute Settlement Body agreed to establish a panel to hear Ukraine’s complaint against the plain packaging measures taken by Australia. Loss of the WTO cases and other pending related international cases could result in annulment of the Australian law. Of course, Thailand has also been down this road before when the Ministry of Public Health proposed putting graphic health warnings on alcohol beverages and a number of countries questioned the proposal in the WTO as well.

Trademarks Help Fight Against Counterfeit Goods

Since 2007, Thailand has been placed on the USTR’s Priority Watch List for the world’s most notorious intellectual property violators. Trademark-infringing products are easily seen around the country today.

Identifying counterfeit, smuggled, or other illicitly traded tobacco products will become extremely difficult as plain packaging will remove common product markings and key identifying features—Customs will not be able to easily tell a counterfeit from a genuine product. This will also likely increase the ease of infringers to copy such products, which in turn will increase the trade in unlawful products. This will cause confusion in the consumer’s mind about which products are genuine and which are not. It will also have a social impact, as an increase in low-quality counterfeits actually means an increase in health risk to the consumer, not to mention the lost tax income to the government from an increase in counterfeits, for which no tax is paid.

A Pragmatic Approach

Overall, Thailand needs to take a pragmatic and practical approach to this issue, rather than simply following one country’s extreme lead or taking directions from ill-informed NGOs. Thai authorities will need to ensure any measures they introduce do not end up infringing on the Thai people’s constitutional rights, undermining intellectual property protection in Thailand, violating the country’s international trade obligations, or unexpectedly resulting in increased levels of smuggling and counterfeiting of tobacco products into the Kingdom.

Tilleke & Gibbins represents a number of international and domestic clients, including Philip Morris Thailand Limited.

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