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

July 5, 2022

Thailand’s First Judgment to Test E-commerce Platform Liability for IP Infringement

Subscribe to Updates

With the growth of technology and internet use, consumers are increasingly shifting toward online shopping. E-commerce platforms have created useful and practical online transactions for products across borders. The number of sellers on e-commerce platforms has also increased significantly in recent years. Naturally, the larger the supply of online products, the greater the risk of possible IP infringement online. While this has made shopping more accessible and convenient for many, it has also created significant opportunities for fraudulent sellers. These fraudulent sellers are often anonymous, and it can be hard to identify them or hold them to account. As a result, some intellectual property (IP) owners have tried to hold e-commerce platforms responsible, raising questions as to what legal liability e-commerce platforms have for content posted by users.

In March 2022, the Central Intellectual Property and International Trade Court (IP&IT Court) issued a landmark judgment finding a world-leading e-commerce platform not liable for a third party’s alleged IP infringement on its platforms.

Contributory infringement

IP can be infringed directly by the person who sells or manufactures the infringing product, or indirectly by a party that encourages or contributes to the infringing act. At present, Thai IP law does not contain any clear provisions on contributory infringement by e-commerce platforms and, until recently, there were no clear court judgments on this issue.

One recent development in this area in Thailand has been the adoption of the Copyright Act (No. 5) B.E. 2565 (2022), which will come into effect on August 23, 2022. This act provides that internet service providers will not be liable for copyright-infringing materials posted by users, provided they comply with certain legal requirements. However, there are currently no equivalent provisions relating to patents, trademarks, or other types of IP rights.

The closest applicable legislation is Section 432 of the Civil and Commercial Code, which provides that a person who instigates or assists in a wrongful act is deemed to be a joint actor and will be jointly bound to compensate for the damage. However the law does not clearly state how this test for contributory infringement should be applied to e-commerce platforms.

In light of the above, in March 2022, the IP&IT Court issued its first judgment on the question of the liability of e-commerce platforms for indirect IP infringement.

Are e-commerce platforms liable for the sale of the IP-infringing goods?

In June 2017, a Thai company filed a patent infringement suit as a plaintiff against Hangzhou Alibaba Advertising Co. Ltd. (Alibaba), alleging that they were liable for the listing of fire-extinguishing balls sold on Alibaba.com, China’s largest international online wholesale marketplace, and AliExpress.com, a global retail marketplace under Alibaba Group, that infringed its patent. This suit also resulted in some negative media coverage against the e-commerce platforms.

Alibaba argued that it did not know or have any reason to know that the products offered for sale on its platform were alleged to have infringed the plaintiff’s patent. As a result, the defendant could not be liable for infringing the plaintiff’s patent.

The buyers must first register an account to order products from the defendant’s websites. When registering an account, buyers enter into an agreement which states that sellers are responsible for any damage caused to the buyer. The plaintiff purchased the fire-extinguishing balls from AliExpress.com website and, as a user of the Alibaba platform, was bound by this agreement. Therefore, the plaintiff’s claim should have been brought against the seller, not the e-commerce platform.

It was the sellers who posted the product listings on alibaba.com and aliexpress.com independently and offered them for sale.Alibaba did not post the disputed product, nor did it have the capacity to control the sale of the product on its online platform. In addition, Alibaba did not know, or have reason to know, that the fire-extinguishing balls infringed the plaintiff’s patent. To combat infringement, Alibaba also maintains a robust notice-and-takedown system and may remove infringing product listings upon receipt of proper notices.

On March 24, 2022, the IP&IT Court issued its judgment in favor of the defendant, concluding that Alibaba was simply an online platform providing services for the buying and sale of the products on its website, and thus the defendant did not infringe the plaintiff’s patent.

Observations

This is a landmark case, as it is the first time the IP&IT Court has addressed the liability of an e-commerce platform for indirect IP infringement. What is particularly notable is the reasoning the court applied. The court used tests that reflect international standards, looking at the e-commerce platform’s actual knowledge of the IP infringement, the party that financially benefited from the IP infringement, and the ability of the e-commerce platform to control the infringing activity. The decision also demonstrates that the court will consider how e-commerce platforms operate in practice and their capacity to control alleged IP-infringing materials on their platform.

As e-commerce and online shopping continue to grow, so too will the number of IP infringement claims brought against platforms. This judgment has the potential to serve as a useful guide for navigating these issues.

Related Professionals

Practices

Intellectual Property

Location

RELATED INSIGHTS​ 

August 15, 2025
Indonesia’s Directorate General of Intellectual Property (DGIP) has introduced a temporary feature in its online filing system to accommodate the submission of annual patent working statements. The requirement to submit these annual working statements was introduced under the amended Patent Law enacted on October 28, 2024, but the implementing regulation has still not been issued. Annual Working Statements Article 20A of the amended Patent Law requires all patentees to submit an annual statement regarding the implementation of their patents in Indonesia. This obligation applies to all active patents, regardless of when they were granted. The annual working statement declares the status of implementation of the patented invention within Indonesia. Acceptable forms of implementation include: Manufacturing the patented product (whether commercialized or not) Utilizing the patented process (whether commercialized or not) Importation Licensing If the patent has not yet been implemented in Indonesia, the DGIP provides an option to indicate: “The mentioned registered patent has not been implemented in Indonesia.” The statement must be made using the official template provided by the DGIP through the online filing system. Submission The working statement must be submitted annually no later than December 31 of each calendar year. No supporting documents are needed for the submission apart from the signed form itself. A color scanned copy will suffice; the original document is not required. There is currently no official fee for submitting the working statement. While the submission process may eventually align with annuity fee payments, the current process remains separate due to the pending implementing regulation. The submission process may be subject to change upon issuance of the implementing regulation, which is under discussion and expected in the coming months. In the interim, the DGIP accepts submissions of overdue working statements, allowing patentees to fulfill their obligations retroactively. This flexibility is expected
Read More
July 31, 2025
The Madrid System for international trademark registration provides the opportunity for a simplified and cost-effective way to register trademarks in multiple countries through a single application. Indonesia joined the Madrid System in 2018, and in 2024 alone, it received over 8,600 applications through this system. Despite the system’s effectiveness, it is important for trademark owners to be aware of the potential risks of refusal that can arise during the process of registration. Trademark applicants must pay close attention to these critical points when designating Indonesia. Appointing a Local Representative to Respond An applicant or representative of an international registration (IR) application that has been provisionally refused must appoint a local Indonesian representative in order to submit a response to the provisional refusal. This appointment is solely for the purpose of responding to the refusal in Indonesia; it is not necessary if the IR has not received any rejection. Furthermore, the local representative should not be registered with WIPO, as doing so would affect representation across all designated countries. Timing When it comes to calculating the deadline for responding to a provisional refusal, there is a discrepancy between the methods used by the DGIP and WIPO. Under the Indonesian Trademark Law, trademark owners can file a response within 30 working days, excluding weekends and national holidays. However, the WIPO cover letter accompanying the DGIP’s provisional refusal notice specifies both the start date and the deadline for responding to the notification, which is calculated as 30 calendar days, including weekends and national holidays. Therefore, a response to the provisional refusal of IR should be submitted in accordance with the WIPO cover letter to prevent any formality issue. Grounds for Refusal After an IR application is published in Indonesia’s Trademark Gazette, it undergoes substantive examination by the Directorate General of Intellectual Property (DGIP) examiners. The
Read More
July 30, 2025
Artificial intelligence (AI) model training and data scraping are essential processes in the development of modern AI systems. AI model training involves using large datasets to teach machine learning algorithms to recognize patterns, make predictions, or generate new content. Data scraping refers to the automated extraction of information from websites or digital sources, often to assemble the vast datasets required for effective AI training. As these practices become more widespread, questions about the legality of using third-party content—especially copyrighted works—have become increasingly important. In Thailand, the legal landscape for AI developers is shaped primarily by the Copyright Act, which presents unique challenges due to the absence of a fair-use exception. This article examines the copyright-related risks and legal uncertainties facing AI developers under Thailand’s current copyright law and practices, offering strategic guidance for navigating this complex environment. Copyright Risks in AI Scraping and Training Thailand’s Copyright Act does not provide a broad fair use or fair dealing exception, unlike some other jurisdictions, such as the United States. This absence has significant consequences for AI developers: No general defense for AI training: Any use of copyrighted material for AI model training is presumed to be infringing unless a specific, narrow statutory exception applies or explicit permission is obtained from the rights holder. There is no general legal basis for using copyrighted works in AI training without authorization. Increased rights clearance burden: Developers must identify and secure licenses for every copyrighted work included in their training datasets. Given the scale and diversity of data required for effective AI models, this process can be both impractical and costly. Legal ambiguity and litigation risk: The lack of clear statutory guidance or case law leaves developers in a legal gray area. There is no established precedent clarifying whether certain uses of copyrighted material for
Read More
July 25, 2025
Over the first half of 2025, the government of Vietnam has implemented a comprehensive suite of legislative reforms that significantly impact the country’s intellectual property (IP) framework. These amendments, most of which took effect on 1 July 2025, span the criminal, civil, administrative, and judicial sectors, and are part of a broader initiative to modernize Vietnam’s legal infrastructure, strengthen enforcement mechanisms, and harmonize domestic regulations with international standards. A summary of the key legislative changes and their potential implications for IP protection and enforcement across Vietnam is provided below. Criminal Code: Stricter penalties Under the 2025 amendments to Vietnam’s Criminal Code, penalties for offenses involving the manufacturing and trading of counterfeit goods have been significantly escalated. Individuals convicted of such violations now face fines ranging from VND 200 million to VND 2 billion (approximately USD 7,700 to USD 77,000; up from VND 100 million to VND 1 billion). For corporate entities, the penalties are even more severe, with fines ranging from VND 2 billion to VND 40 billion (roughly USD 77,000 to USD 1.54 million; up from VND 1 billion to VND 20 billion). These heightened penalties reflect the government’s intensified efforts to deter counterfeit-related crimes and protect consumer rights. Law on Handling Administrative Violations: Extended statute of limitations and application of electronic procedure The statute of limitations for addressing administrative violations in the IP sector is still two years. However, in cases where such violations are referred by procedural authorities, this period is extended by one year. The time taken by these authorities to process the case is now included within the overall limitation period. In addition, the Law on Handling Administrative Violations facilitates the use of electronic procedures, provided that the necessary infrastructure, technical systems, and information conditions are in place. Specifically, enforcement authorities are now permitted
Read More