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

August 28, 2015

Thailand’s Increasingly Stringent Regulatory Controls on the Packaging and Labeling of Alcoholic Beverages

Thailand has long been regarded as a particularly strict jurisdiction with respect to restrictions on the advertising, sale, and consumption of alcohol and tobacco products. Two recent developments demonstrate that current political uncertainties have done nothing to reverse the trend for increasingly draconian restrictions on international and local brand owners.

On January 22, 2015, the Notification of the Alcoholic Beverages Control, Re: Rules, Procedures, and Conditions for Labels of Alcoholic Beverages was published in the Royal Thai Government Gazette. It sets out controversial labeling and message restrictions for alcoholic beverages that could result in major losses for the alcohol industry. The Notification has been challenged before Thailand’s Administrative Court, but pending the outcome of that case, it has, in the meantime, come into effect on April 22, 2015.

The Notification

The basis of the Notification is the Alcoholic Beverage Control Act (2008) and its subsequent Ministerial Regulation (2010), under which alcoholic beverages are not allowed to be advertised in any way which boasts of efficacies, benefits, qualities, or induces one to drink.

In January 2014, the Ministry of Public Health (MoPH) notified the WTO Committee on Sanitary and Phytosanitary Measures of proposed labeling requirements for alcoholic beverages. The draft Notification prohibited use of various types of messages on alcoholic beverage labels and packages, including any message “which misleads consumers on the content of products” and any message “using the picture of a cartoon.”

The MoPH issued a revised draft Notification in August 2014. This draft Notification combined the labeling restrictions along with measures mandating graphic health warnings on alcoholic beverage packaging which would have seen Thailand becoming the first country in the world to do so. Thailand had earlier introduced the concept of graphic health warnings on alcoholic beverage packaging in 2010.  However, this was notified to the WTO Technical Barriers to Trade Committee in 2010 and the issue went silent.

In December 2014, the MoPH signed the final version of the Notification without the graphic health warning provisions, but with revised versions of the labeling and message restrictions, including prohibitions on “a message which materially misleads consumers on the content of products” and “a message using cartoon images, except images which are trademarks of alcoholic beverages which have been legitimately registered prior to enforcement of this Notification.”

Alcoholic beverages have long been branded and marketed with labels, containers, and packaging containing important messages depicted graphically which have been registered as trademarks and/or service marks. The Ministry will likely argue that many such future trademarks unregistered before April 22, 2015 offend the requirements in the Notification, and therefore operators would be prohibited from displaying such trademarks on their products in Thailand.

Trademark Rights Impinged

By registering a trademark, a rights holder obtains the exclusive rights to use the mark and license its use. Section 44 of the Trademark Act sets out a trademark owner’s positive right to use his or her registered trademark as follows: “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 the use of trademarks on alcoholic beverage labels, containers, or packaging would disallow rights holders to use their trademarks in accordance with their registration and would put those marks at risk of cancellation based on non-use.

Possible Remedies

Ministerial Notifications are subject to legal challenge in Thailand’s Administrative Court. The Court has jurisdiction over an alleged “unlawful act by an administrative agency or State Official, whether in connection with the issuance of a by-law or order…” and the power to overturn or amend such measures to the extent they are found to be illegal. Upon application, the Court may issue an injunctive order suspending execution of the measure pending the outcome of the legal challenge.

There are various legal bases on which the Notification may be challenged, including inconsistency with Thailand’s trademark laws and alleging that:

  • the Ministry acted beyond its scope of powers granted by the primary legislation;
  • the Ministry failed to comply with binding procedural requirements;
  • the Notification offends constitutional protections, including the rights to protection of property and to engage in free and fair competition; and
  • the Notification offends the principles of necessity and proportionality, which require that any measure restricting the rights of individuals (as the draft Notification in its present form  does) may only be enacted to the degree necessary for a legal purpose, and provided that it does not affect the essential substance of such rights.

In our recent experience, the Court has acknowledged the potential illegality of similar Notifications issued by the MoPH that affect the use of lawfully-registered trademarks on consumer products. This was in regard to graphic health warning size increases on tobacco products.

Graphic Health Warnings

With the Notification now in effect, the MoPH appears to be moving once more toward the reintroduction of requirements for graphic health warnings on alcoholic beverage packaging. The MoPH has now twice—in 2010 and 2014—proposed the introduction of graphic health warnings in the style of those already in place for tobacco products in Thailand.

In a novel move, the MoPH has now, via its www.thaiantialcohol.com website, launched a public competition to design new graphic health warnings for alcoholic beverage packaging. The competition, which is open to all, requires that entries:

  • may use any graphic design technique, including painting, photography, etc.;
  • must warn the public of the harms and consequences of alcoholic beverage consumption;
  • must aim to deter children and teenagers and the public to refrain from consuming alcoholic beverages;
  • must also contain “warning phases”; and
  • must comply with all relevant IP laws and must be new and not previously submitted in any other contest or published in any magazine or website, etc.

Contest participants must agree to transfer all IP rights related to the submission to the Thai Alcohol Control Committee.

Prizes are on offer to the winning designs of THB 2,000 to THB 50,000 (approximately USD 56 to USD 1,398), and the deadline to submit is August 31, 2015.

The MoPH’s competition is a clear attempt to engage the public in the MoPH’s anti-alcohol efforts, and to drum up support for the imposition of graphic health warnings. The exercise will no doubt raise significant awareness of the issue, and the outcome of the competition will be awaited with interest. 

However, the delegation of this part of the regulatory process to the general public is bound to raise questions of whether any resultant notification or regulation is based upon internationally-recognized principles of evidence-based policymaking, and can therefore be demonstrated to be an effective and proportionate measure to tackle genuine public health and social harms associated with alcoholic beverages. 

The blanket imposition of large graphic health warnings on all alcoholic beverage products is also likely to meet stiff opposition from alcoholic beverage manufacturers and importers on the basis that it unreasonably restricts their right to use their lawfully-registered trademarks to market their legal products to adult consumers.

RELATED INSIGHTS​ 

September 9, 2026
On August 5, 2026, the Consumer Case Division of Thailand’s Civil Court rendered a judgment in a case involving a beauty clinic that advertised acne scar treatments using claims that the clinic was operated by a specialist physician and that the treatment, allegedly involving stem cell technology, could permanently remove acne scars. The plaintiff brought a claim against both the physician-owner and the clinic company, alleging that the advertisements were false and induced her to purchase the treatment. The court found that the clinic was liable for the false representations and that the physician-owner, as both the authorized director of the company and the medical practitioner who provided treatment, was jointly responsible. Although the plaintiff could not fully prove all damages claimed, the court awarded compensation of THB 20,000, together with interest. While the judgment arose from a consumer protection dispute, it serves as a valuable reminder that medical facility advertisements in Thailand are regulated and may expose clinics and healthcare providers not only to regulatory enforcement but also to civil liability from patients who rely on misleading promotional claims. Regulatory Framework Governing Medical Facility Advertisements Medical facility advertising in Thailand is governed by the Medical Facility Act B.E. 2541 (1998), as amended by the Medical Facility Act (No. 4) B.E. 2559 (2016). The principal secondary legislation is the Department of Health Service Support (DoHSS) Notification Re: Rules, Procedures, Conditions, and Fees for an Advertisement or Publication Concerning a Medical Facility, which came into force on November 25, 2019. Under this notification, “advertising” includes any act, by any means, that causes members of the public to see, hear, or otherwise become aware of a message, sound, or image for the commercial benefit of a medical facility. This broad definition covers not only traditional media but also clinic websites, social
September 9, 2026
On June 30, 2026, Indonesia’s National Agency of Drug and Food Control (BPOM) issued BPOM Regulation No. 11 of 2026 on Food Packaging, which expands the list of approved food-contact substances and recognizes a broader range of permissible functions for those substances. The new regulation, which revokes BPOM Regulation No. 20 of 2019, reflects developments in packaging technology and materials science. Although the new regulation provides more advantages to business actors by adding more food contact substances to the approved list for use in food packaging, there are more stringent rules and restrictions for testing. One of the most significant changes is a comprehensive migration-testing framework that sets out requirements for packaging materials, testing conditions, food simulants, and specific migration limits. Overall and Specific Migration Under BPOM Regulation No. 20 of 2019, migration requirements were primarily set out within the lists of approved food-contact substances and packaging materials. BPOM Regulation No. 11 of 2026 instead expressly requires packaging materials that come into direct contact with food to meet both overall and specific migration limits. These are defined as follows: Overall migration: The total quantity of all substances that migrate from the packaging, regardless of whether the substances are hazardous or nonhazardous to health. Specific migration: The quantity of a particular identified substance known to be hazardous to health that migrates from the packaging. Stricter Limits on Heavy Metals The overall migration limit for plastic packaging remains unchanged under both regulations at 60 mg/kg or 10 mg/dm². However, the new regulation introduces significant changes to the regulation of heavy metals. Under the 2019 regulation, four heavy metals—lead, cadmium, chromium VI, and mercury—were subject to a single combined limit of 1 mg/kg. The 2026 regulation, however, requires each heavy metal to meet its own individual specific migration limit, adds arsenic as
September 7, 2026
Indonesia’s Constitutional Court (Mahkamah Konstitusi) has reinstated a key provision limiting pharmaceutical patent protection, signaling a renewed commitment to balancing patent rights with public access to medicines. In its ruling to Case No. 255/PUU-XXIII/2025, the court partially granted a petition for judicial review of Law No. 65 of 2024, which had amended the country’s Patent Law, and ordered the restoration of a provision that had excluded certain pharmaceutical inventions from patentability. The decision took effect immediately upon its pronouncement at the court’s plenary session on August 28, 2026. Background The petition challenged the removal of article 4(f) from Law No. 13 of 2016 concerning Patents (Patent Law), as amended by Law No. 65 of 2024. Article 4(f) had excluded from patentability certain inventions relating to new uses of known substances. The petitioners argued that removing this provision would open the door to patent protection for second medical use inventions and facilitate patent evergreening—practices that can extend exclusivity periods, delay generic market entry, and reduce public access to affordable medicines. The petitioners included several patient advocacy and public-interest organizations: the Indonesian Dialysis Patients Community Association, the Indonesian Association of Drug Abuse Victims (PKNI), the Indonesian Pulmonary Hypertension Foundation (YHPI), the Rekat Peduli Indonesia Foundation, and the Indonesian Positive Women’s Association (IPPI), along with the Indonesia for Global Justice Association and four individual petitioners. The petitioners also challenged the constitutionality of the phrase “interested party” in article 70(1) of the Patent Law, arguing that it should be construed expressly to clarify who has standing to appeal a decision to grant a patent before the Board of Patent Appeal, and to allow a broader range of parties—such as patent holders, licensees, consumer organizations, prosecutors, aggrieved third parties, and others who may suffer direct or indirect harm from the grant of a patent—to
September 4, 2026
Blind boxes and collectibles have become increasingly popular, driven by the excitement of not knowing which character or design will be revealed until the package is opened. While most visible in the art toy market, the same concept is also used in the food industry. Confectionery, snacks, and other food products are sometimes sold with toys, character figures, cards, or other collectibles. A package might, for example, contain one of ten possible characters, with consumers knowing that an item is included but not which one they will receive. Some collections may also feature rare or “secret” items. For food businesses, however, adding a randomized toy or collectible involves more than a marketing decision. The food, the nonfood item, and the randomized mechanism may each raise different regulatory considerations in Thailand. Thai FDA Requirements for Nonfood Objects Packaged with Food The main food regulatory consideration is Ministry of Public Health Notification No. 310 B.E. 2551 (2008), which regulates food packaged together with things or objects that are not food. Under Notification No. 310, certain nonfood objects may be packaged together with food where they fall within specified exceptions, including objects that serve the following purposes: Maintaining the quality or standard of the food, such as a desiccant or oxygen absorber; Serving as a seasoning or as part of food preparation, such as chili powder sachets or seasoning sachets contained in instant noodle packages; or Functioning as an eating or food-preparation utensil, such as a spoon or fork included with instant noodles. Other nonfood objects that do not fall within these categories generally should not be placed inside the food container together with the food. Where a toy, collectible, or other nonfood object is intended to be sold together with a food product, businesses should therefore carefully consider the nature of