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​ 

March 16, 2026
Indonesia’s Ministry of Law has introduced a new framework for patent applications that tightens filing requirements and introduces formal mechanisms for accelerated examination. Minister of Law Regulation No. 6 of 2026 on Patent Applications, which was issued on January 13, 2026, and took effect on February 23, 2026, serves as the implementing regulation for Law No. 65 of 2024 on Patents. It replaces the previous patent application framework (under Minister of Law and Human Rights Regulation No. 38 of 2018, as amended by Regulation No. 13 of 2021), which was considered no longer aligned with current legal, institutional, and technological developments. The regulation also reflects the institutional restructuring of the Ministry of Law and Human Rights into the Ministry of Law. Patent applications filed on or after February 23, 2026, must fully comply with the new regulation. Applications that were filed before this date will continue to be examined and processed under the previous regulation, pursuant to transitional provisions. Substantive Changes Definition of Invention The definition of “Invention” now explicitly includes systems, methods, and uses, in addition to products and processes. This expansion creates broader protection opportunities, particularly for software-enabled, digital, and method-based technologies, although it may also result in closer scrutiny during substantive examination. Excess Claims Fee Excess claims fees must now be paid at the time of filing. Failure to pay excess claims fees at filing results in the application being deemed withdrawn. There is no longer an option to defer payment to the substantive examination stage. This amendment forces applicants to face higher upfront costs. Patent claim strategy must be finalized prior to filing, reducing flexibility at later stages. Procedural and System Changes Fully Electronic Filing Patent applications must be filed electronically via the Directorate General of Intellectual Property (DGIP) online filing system. Assisted filings to
Read More
March 13, 2026
For decades, intellectual property rights holders seeking to eliminate counterfeit goods from the Thai market have relied primarily on criminal raid actions to seize infringing products and hold infringers accountable. The deterrent value of this approach is typically threefold: imposing criminal liability on infringers, removing counterfeit goods from circulation, and subjecting violators to imprisonment and fines. However, these outcomes often fall short of fulfilling brand owners’ broader objectives. In many cases, those prosecuted are merely staff or intermediaries rather than the principals orchestrating the infringing operations. Moreover, any fines imposed are remitted to the Thai government—not to the rights holders who have suffered commercial harm and invested substantial resources in investigation and coordination with law enforcement authorities. As in other jurisdictions worldwide, rights holders seeking monetary compensation for IP infringement in Thailand have traditionally pursued separate civil litigation. Before initiating such proceedings, a brand owner must gather sufficient evidence to establish both the infringement and the resulting damages. Notably, Thai law does not recognize punitive damages; courts award only actual damages proven by the claimant. In the absence of seized infringing goods, the damages awarded in such cases are typically minimal. This all leaves rights holders with limited recourse despite possibly having suffered significant commercial injury. In 2005, Thailand amended its Criminal Procedure Code to introduce Section 44/1, which enables rights holders to claim damages within criminal proceedings at the Intellectual Property and International Trade Court prior to the evidentiary hearing. In practice, this mechanism allows an injured party to submit a petition for civil damages directly within the criminal case initiated by the public prosecutor. Historically, rights holders in Thailand have been reluctant to use Section 44/1 because the compensation awarded by courts was often insufficient to justify the effort. However, recent years have seen a notable shift
Read More
March 13, 2026
Vietnam’s Law on Intellectual Property (IP Law) has undergone continuous amendment in recent years, with the latest amendment issued at the end of 2025. Among the amended and supplemented provisions, the regulation that has perhaps attracted the most attention is a provision relating to the use of protected IP objects by artificial intelligence (AI) systems. Specifically, Article 7 of the 2025 IP Law introduces a completely new Clause 5, which reads in full as follows: “Organizations and individuals are permitted to use texts and data relating to intellectual property objects that have been lawfully published, and which the public is allowed to access, for the purposes of scientific research, experimentation, and training of artificial intelligence systems, provided that such use will not unreasonably affect the legitimate rights and interests of the authors and intellectual property rights holders in accordance with this Law. With respect to texts and data that are objects protected by copyright and related rights, the use of the texts and data as set forth herein must also be in accordance with the regulations of the Government.” Analyzing this newly added provision in the context of how it was conceived, as well as the challenges that still lie ahead, can provide some interesting insights. From Aspirations to Flight in Science and Technology From the end of 2024 and throughout 2025—the 50th anniversary of the country’s reunification—Vietnam witnessed numerous sweeping changes in many areas, including legislative development. It could be said that no sessions of the National Assembly have ever adopted as many laws, resolutions, and major policies as this one. The aspirations of the highest-level leadership have been concretized into major law and policy projects, which were drafted, developed, and passed at record speed. All of this was aimed at building a foundation for Vietnam to achieve
Read More
March 10, 2026
Indonesia’s trademark prosecution process has been significantly streamlined with Ministry of Law Regulation No. 5 of 2026 (MOLR 5/2026) coming into effect on February 23, 2026. In straightforward cases without opposition, applicants may now see their trademarks proceed to registration within three months from filing—a substantial improvement over previous practice. The regulation also introduces detailed procedures for recording changes of name and address and for transferring rights over pending applications. It enhances the role of the Ministry of Law’s regional offices in assisting local individuals and SMEs, adds provisions governing force majeure situations, implements new requirements for collective trademarks, and formalizes several practices already in place. Substantive Examination Acceleration The most significant change under MOLR 5/2026 concerns substantive examination. The regulation now explicitly requires that applications be published within 15 days of filing, followed by a two-month publication period. Oppositions must be filed only within this window; late submissions will not be processed, even if the system accepts payment. The new regulation requires the Trademark Office (TMO) to forward copies of any opposition to applicants within 14 days of receipt. If no opposition is filed, substantive examination begins immediately after the publication period ends and will be completed within 30 days. If an opposition is filed, the examination is to be finalized within 90 days of the counterstatement filing date. These timelines enable unopposed applications to move from close of publication to final decision in roughly one month. If an application is provisionally refused during ex officio examination, the applicant has 30 working days from the date of notification to file a response. However, the regulation does not specify the timeline for subsequent reexamination after the response is filed. In recent practice, the TMO has been completing reexamination within approximately two to three months. Ownership Recordals May Pause Substantive
Read More