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​ 

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