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

December 6, 2022

Thailand’s MOU on Online Advertising and IPRs Promotes Collaboration to Fight Infringement

Subscribe to Updates

Thailand’s Department of Intellectual Property (DIP) has continued its strategy of enlisting the support of stakeholders from various sectors in the fight against infringement of intellectual property rights (IPRs) by introducing a memorandum of understanding (MOU) on advertising practices. This follows the success of last year’s MOU on Online IP Protection, which aimed to tackle issues of intellectual property (IP) infringement on various e-commerce marketplace platforms. That MOU represented Thailand’s efforts in bringing together relevant stakeholders to address online IP infringement issues in a unified and collaborative manner.

The DIP’s latest such cooperative initiative is the MOU on Online Advertising and IPRs. A signing ceremony for the MOU was held on October 28, 2022. The DIP, three advertising associations, and various IPR owners all participated in the event, which took place at the Ministry of Commerce. Tilleke & Gibbins joined to sign the MOU as one of the founding signatory parties.

The major parties to this MOU are:

  • the DIP;
  • advertising business operators (online advertisement producers and advertisement providers);
  • associations related to advertising and media;
  • IPR owners—particularly those experiencing IPR infringement problems in Thailand; and
  • law firms.

Objectives of the New MOU

The objective of the new MOU on Online Advertising and IPRs is to build and enhance collaboration among IPR owners, advertising business operators, associations, and the DIP, with the goal of preventing and suppressing the production, distribution, and circulation of online IP-infringing advertisements and halting the income flowing to infringers from advertisements posted on IP-infringing websites or applications.

This MOU addresses different issues in comparison to last year’s MOU on Online IP Protection. The latter addressed IP infringing merchandise on e-commerce platforms, whereas the new MOU tackles the issue of IP-infringing advertisements, as well as IP-infringing websites and applications, with more focus on infringing content than on infringing merchandise.

Highlights of the New MOU

A noteworthy practice introduced under this new MOU is that once relevant infringement is found, the DIP may act as an intermediary for IPR owners in coordinating with the relevant advertising business operators and associations to eliminate advertisements on websites and software applications that infringe IPRs, with supporting evidence or as requested by IPR owners and other related parties to the MOU.

As such, IPR owners who join this MOU are likely to gain recognition and receive strong support from the DIP, advertising business operators, and associations to resolve IPR infringement issues specific to online advertising. The level of cooperation from advertising business operators and associations is expected to be greatly improved as a result of joining this MOU.

This development is also significant in light of Thailand’s recent promulgation of amendments to the Copyright Act B.E. 2537 (1994), introducing a notice-and-takedown system for reporting infringing content hosted by internet service providers. The new MOU on Online Advertising and IPRs harmoniously corresponds with the Thai authorities’ increasingly proactive strategies for tackling online infringement in advertisements, websites, and applications.

Related Professionals

Practices

Intellectual Property

Location

RELATED INSIGHTS​ 

September 24, 2025
Online shopping in Thailand is more accessible than ever, with global platforms, local social media shops, and entertainment-driven social commerce enabling instant purchases. However, this convenience comes with rising concerns over digital intellectual property (IP) infringement, including counterfeit goods, pirated content, and unauthorized brand usage. At first glance, online platforms appear to offer quick solutions. Most major e-commerce sites, social media channels, and social commerce platforms provide “notice and takedown” systems, where IP owners can file complaints and request the removal of listings that infringe IP rights, such as trademarks and copyrights. These tools are certainly useful, as seeing a fake product vanish from a platform feels like progress. But the reality is less reassuring. The counterfeit goods themselves remain in warehouses, markets, or shops, ready to be resold. Sellers whose accounts are taken down often return within days under new names or accounts. In other words, a takedown is like cutting weeds without pulling out the roots: they always grow back. While notice and takedown tools are widely available and can be managed internally by most IP owners, their impact is often short-lived. IP owners seeking more effective, lasting protection need to take a more strategic and multilayered approach. The same applies to online piracy. Unauthorized streaming websites that offer free access to movies, TV shows, or sports broadcasts have become widespread in Thailand. To combat this, rightsholders can request website blocking under the Computer Crime Act, through the Ministry of Digital Economy and Society and the courts. Once requests are approved, internet service providers are ordered to block access to infringing sites. Blocking orders can be effective in disrupting large-scale piracy operations, but they also face limitations—pirate sites frequently reappear under new domains. Strategic Protection Whether the infringing material is physical counterfeit goods or intangible streaming content,
Read More
September 4, 2025
On June 6, 2025, the Superior People’s Court in Hanoi overturned a non-use cancellation decision by the Intellectual Property Office of Vietnam, a rare and impactful occurrence. In a ruling that may help clarify the enforcement of Vietnam’s IP Law, the court held that valid trademark use can be established through commercial arrangements where the brand owner maintains actual control over the use of the mark, and is not confined to relationships governed by a so-called “formal license agreement. Background: Cross-Border Use, Local Challenge A Singapore company owns a well-known brand of consumer products that has gained recognition across Southeast Asia. In recent years, the brand has been targeted by several unauthorized trademark filings in Vietnam. In one such instance, a local Vietnamese trading company—previously linked to the production and export of counterfeit goods to neighboring countries—filed a non-use cancellation against the Singapore company’s mark and sought to register it under its own name. If the cancellation had been upheld, it would have enabled a complete hijacking of the brand. The IP holder operates in Vietnam through a structured cross-border supply chain. Under an agreement between two related foreign entities, one of which managed regional operations, production orders were placed through a designated Vietnamese company. While the Vietnamese manufacturer was not a party to the agreement, its role in using the mark was recognized and governed by internal and commercial documentation. The Vietnamese manufacturer lawfully obtained the necessary permits, regulatory approvals, and customs clearances for producing the goods in Vietnam. These activities were supported by banking records and internal communications, evidencing active, continuous use of the mark in Vietnam. However, the IP Office concluded that this use did not meet the statutory criteria because the Vietnamese manufacturer did not have a direct license agreement with the brand owner, as
Read More
August 25, 2025
Indonesia’s current regulations on franchises, as stipulated under Government Regulation No. 35/2024 on Franchising and its implementing regulation, Ministry of Trade (MOT) Regulation No. 71/2019 regarding Implementation of Franchising, highlight fundamental changes in franchise registration. These changes have introduced additional complexities and challenges in the franchise registration procedure, making it more difficult for franchise owners to navigate the process. New procedure Franchise applications are still submitted through the Online Single Submission (OSS) portal of the Capital Investment Coordinating Board (BKPM). However, the new procedure requires each applicant, including foreign franchisors, to have an OSS account and a business registration number (NIB) issued by BKPM. An application for franchise registration must be submitted under the applicant’s own account—submissions can no longer be made through the account of a consultant. Once a franchise application is submitted, the authority will distribute the submission to the MOT—the authorized ministry for franchise registration. Any notification or decision upon the registration made by the MOT will be available in the OSS system. Applicants should regularly monitor the status of the franchise application because no notifications will be sent to applicants to alert them of any deficiency. Here is the summary of the new procedure for franchisors: Notable Requirements The disclosure document, or prospectus, is the key focus for the MOT in examining a franchise registration for a franchisor. This document is subject to thorough scrutiny by the MOT to ensure that all mandatory information meets the requirements set in the franchise regulations. The current regulations specifically require that the mandatory clause “business system” in the prospectus cover operational standards and procedures, which should include human resource management, administration, operational management, standard operating methods, business location selection, business premises design, employee requirements, and marketing strategies. Other clauses that are equally important to pay attention to are:
Read More
August 21, 2025
Although the “passing off” principle has sometimes faced criticism for potentially broadening trademark protection—particularly in cases involving unregistered or unconventional marks like shapes, scents, or sounds—it serves an essential purpose. It safeguards the rights of business owners and shields consumers from deception, ensuring fair competition and reflecting the realities of modern commerce. What is passing off, and why is registrability not required? The passing-off principle is a legal concept rooted in English law, aimed at preventing a person from falsely representing or using a mark similar to another’s in a way that causes consumers to mistakenly believe the goods or services come from the same source. Under Thai law, the passing-off principle is provided under Section 46 of the Thai Trademark Act, which states: No person shall be entitled to bring legal proceedings to prevent or to recover damages for the infringement of an unregistered trademark. The provisions of this Section shall not affect the right of the owner of an unregistered trademark to bring legal proceedings against any person for passing off goods as those of the owner of the trademark. The passing-off principle can be interpreted as a practical legal concept. It does not require proof that the mark is registrable or meets the registrability criteria under trademark law. It is sufficient to show that the mark has established goodwill and that the other party’s use of a similar mark is likely to confuse consumers, making it a straightforward and effective tool for protecting brand assets. Requiring a claimant to prove that an unregistered mark could have been registered would undermine the very function of passing off. The doctrine was conceived precisely to fill the gaps left by the registration system. Imposing registrability criteria would nullify its function and leave many commercially valuable identifiers unprotected. If the
Read More