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

February 13, 2019

Thailand’s DSI Imposes THB 10 Million Damage Threshold for Investigating IP Cases

Subscribe to Updates

On February 5, 2019, Notification of the Board of Special Cases (No. 7) B.E. 2562 (2019) was put into effect, establishing new conditions for intellectual property (IP) owners who wish to bring legal action before the Department of Special Investigation (DSI). The notification is intended to clearly separate the jurisdictions of the police and the DSI.

Among other things, the notification requires the DSI to only investigate an IP case if it has evidence that the suspected counterfeits have a market price with a total value of at least THB 10 million (approximately USD 320,000), or that the damages to be incurred from the offenses will exceed THB 10 million.

Background: DSI Jurisdiction

The Special Case Investigation Act B.E 2547 (2004) (as amended on February 20, 2007), and subsequent notifications made under it, lay out the DSI’s jurisdiction over “special cases,” which include:

  1. complex criminal cases that require special investigation and evidence gathering;
  2. criminal cases that could have serious effects on public order and morals, national security, international relations, or the country’s economic or finance-related matters;
  3. criminal cases classified as serious transnational crimes or committed by organized criminal groups;
  4. criminal cases involving an influential person as a principal, instigator, or supporter;
  5. certain criminal cases against administrative officials or senior police officers, who are not special case inquiry officers or DSI officers, with sufficient evidence that the subject might commit or be accused of an offense; and
  6. any criminal case that the Board of Special Cases determines, by a two-thirds majority, should be investigated.

In addition to falling into one of the categories above, IP offenses must be brought under one of the provisions below for the DSI to process them as special cases:

  • Sections 108, 109, 110, or 114 of the Trademark Act B.E. 2534 (1991);
  • Sections 69, 70, or 74 of the Copyright Act B.E. 2537 (1994); or
  • Sections 85, 86, or 88 of the Patent Act B.E. 2522 (1979).

Before the DSI accepts a special case, the Board of Special Cases must consider its merits and seek approval from the Director-General of the DSI.

New Provisions

The new notification adds the following additional conditions for IP cases:

  • The alleged offender must operate, or be reasonably believed to operate, manufacturing, purchasing, or distribution facilities; warehouses; or importing businesses.
  • The total market value of the articles or products possessed for use in the offense, acquired from the offense, or the possession of which is an offense, must exceed THB 10 million, or the damages reasonably expected to be incurred from the offenses will exceed THB 10 million.

The notification also adds a refilling offense under Section 109/1 of the Thai Trademark Act for trademark infringement cases.

Final Remarks

This is a significant change for IP owners seeking to initiate IP infringement cases in Thailand, as the DSI could previously use its significant resources to investigate serious cases that were, nevertheless, of relatively low direct financial value.

Moving forward, only very high-valued IP cases related to the manufacture, distribution, or import of counterfeits on a large scale will receive legal action from the DSI. IP owners who cannot provide evidence that their case meets the THB 10 million threshold will now have to take criminal action through the police.

If you have any queries about this notification, or about any other aspect of enforcing IP rights in Thailand, please contact our Bangkok office on [email protected] or +66 2056 5555.

Related Professionals

Practices

Intellectual Property

Location

RELATED INSIGHTS​ 

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
July 27, 2026
Vietnam’s new E-Commerce Law, which took effect on 1 July 2026 along with its implementing Decree No. 248/2026/ND-CP (Decree 248), marks a significant development in the country’s approach to online intellectual property (IP) enforcement, reflecting a clear shift from a reactive model of intermediary liability to one that expects platforms to play a more active role in preventing infringement. From notice-and-takedown to platform responsibility The most significant change introduced by the E-Commerce Law is the transformation of the legal role of e-commerce platforms. The existing safe harbor provisions under the IP Law and the copyright notice-and-takedown regime established by Decree 17/2023/ND-CP (Decree 17) largely required intermediaries to act only after receiving notice of infringement. Once infringing content had been removed, the platform’s legal obligation was generally considered fulfilled. The new legislation adopts a fundamentally different approach. Article 17 of the E-Commerce Law requires intermediary platforms to screen information relating to goods and services before publication in order to prevent listings involving counterfeit or IP-infringing goods, and goods of unknown origin. Rather than relying exclusively on complaints from rights holders, platforms are now expected to implement preventive measures before infringing listings become publicly available. Decree 248 further requires platforms to update keyword filters based on recommendations issued by competent authorities. These filtering mechanisms are intended to prevent prohibited listings from appearing on the platform and represent a further move away from a purely complaint-driven enforcement model. The legislation also introduces Vietnam’s first statutory stay-down obligation. Under the E-Commerce Law and Decree 248, major digital platforms must maintain automated systems capable of reviewing, warning against, and removing unlawful listings while also implementing measures to prevent repeat violations, defined under Decree 248 as conduct that has previously been identified and handled by the platform, but continues to recur. This obligation addresses one
Read More
July 27, 2026
Tilleke & Gibbins’ intellectual property specialists have authored the Thailand chapter of Trade Secrets 2026 from Chambers and Partners. This global guide examines the legal frameworks governing trade secret protection, enforcement, and litigation across jurisdictions worldwide. The Thailand chapter provides a comprehensive overview of the country’s legal regime for protecting confidential business information, covering the legal framework, trade secret misappropriation, litigation procedures, remedies, and dispute resolution. Some topics covered include: Protectable trade secrets Reasonable measures to maintain secrecy Employee confidentiality Trade secret licensing Civil and criminal remedies Litigation procedures and injunctions Damages and other remedies Mediation and arbitration The guide also examines practical issues relating to safeguarding trade secrets, defending against allegations of misappropriation, and managing trade secret disputes in Thailand. Chambers and Partners’ Global Practice Guides provide in-house counsel with authoritative commentary on practical legal issues affecting business, enabling readers to compare legislation and procedures across multiple jurisdictions. The Thailand chapter of Trade Secrets 2026 is available as a PDF through the button below. The full guide can be accessed for free on the Chambers and Partners website.
Read More
July 27, 2026
In March 2025, Thailand’s Central Intellectual Property and International Trade Court (IP&IT Court) issued a landmark judgment in favor of Luckin Coffee, China’s leading retail coffee chain. The judgment marked a significant turnaround following earlier trademark litigation involving Luckin Coffee from 2021 to 2023 that had generated widespread public attention and raised questions about the protection available to legitimate foreign brand owners in Thailand. In a significant subsequent development, Thailand’s Court of Appeal for Specialized Cases has now affirmed the IP&IT Court’s judgment in its entirety. The appellate decision brings clarity to one of Thailand’s most closely watched trademark disputes. Significantly, this is the first case in Thailand to formally recognize the trademark squatting principle. The Court of Appeal confirmed that Luckin Coffee has a better right to the disputed mark and ordered cancellation of the defendants’ trademark registration—a key application of the “better right” doctrine. The court also upheld the substantial damages awarded at first instance, providing important guidance on assessing harm from systematic trademark squatting. Award-Winning Judgment Affirmed in Its Entirety The significance of the first-instance judgment extended beyond the outcome for Luckin Coffee. The IP&IT Court judgment was subsequently recognized in the IP&IT Court’s Distinguished Judgment Awards in 2025, reflecting the complexity, novelty, and legal significance of the issues considered in the case. The defendants nevertheless appealed the judgment, challenging several key aspects of the IP&IT Court’s decision. Luckin Coffee continued to entrust Tilleke & Gibbins as their sole attorney to pursue the case at the appellate level. After considering the defendants’ appeal and Luckin Coffee’s submissions in response, the Court of Appeal affirmed the first-instance judgment in its entirety. The judgment was announced on July 8, 2026. Better Right to the Marks The Court of Appeal confirmed Luckin Coffee’s superior rights. The orders include cancellation
Read More