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

May 28, 2015

Thailand’s New Customs Department Software Program

Subscribe to Updates
Informed Counsel

Recently, the Intellectual Property Rights Coordination Center (IPR Center), under the supervision of Division III of the Investigation and Suppression Bureau, Royal Thai Customs Department (Customs), has developed an iteration of the software program that brand owners can use to record their marks for monitoring. In this article, we will discuss the new software program, cooperation with Customs, and Customs recordation with the Department of Intellectual Property (DIP).

New Customs Software Program

In the past, Customs allowed brand owners to record the brands/trademarks they would like Customs to directly monitor. Customs also allowed brand owners to record detailed trademark information and the names of authorized importers. Customs would then make this information available through their internal systems to enable Customs inspectors to easily find the contact details of brand owners or their representatives if they encountered goods that were suspected to be counterfeits of the brand owner’s products.

This system was operated efficiently by Customs, and brand owners did not have to sign a letter of consent to bear responsibility for seized goods. Under the new system, however, the IPR Center requires brand owners to act in accordance with the regulation concerning the importation and exportation of goods into and out of Thailand, and brand owners who would like Customs to continue monitoring their brands must file for customs recordation with the DIP.

A new software program has therefore been created by the IPR Center to shift filing recordations of trademarks to the DIP. The database will provide the most up-to-date contact details for trademark owners or their representatives, as well as information about the trademarks registered with the DIP.

Cooperation with Customs

Customs expects and urges that brand owners who have completed recordation with the DIP ought to fully cooperate with Customs to verify the authenticity of seized goods within 24 hours after they have been contacted and informed of the seizure, no matter the amount of the seized suspicious counterfeits. According to a 2013 Memorandum of Understanding, normally, goods can be detained for up to ten days. However, if the goods sustain any damage during a detention that was made at the request of the brand owner, the brand owner will be held responsible for the damage. Therefore, brand owners are encouraged to verify the seized goods within 24 hours upon being informed by Customs.

Customs Recordation with the DIP

A trademark owner can first establish his or her legal rights under the Notification of the Ministry of Commerce 1987 by filing an application with the trademark registrar. Such an application must be submitted to the competent authorities at the DIP, and the trademark registrar must be notified of the trademark owner’s request to prohibit the importation/exportation of products bearing a counterfeit mark.

A trademark owner must submit the following documentary evidence together with the application:

  1. a certified copy of the trademark registration certificate or certified copy of the trademark registration official record, which can be obtained from the DIP;
  2. an original/certified true copy of the power of attorney, when authorizing a person to act on behalf of the trademark owner;  
  3. an original/certified true copy of the juristic person certificate, issued not more than six months from the date of issuance of the certificate, when the owner of the trademark is a juristic person;
  4. a letter of consent to bear liability from the trademark owner assuming responsibility for any damages that may arise due to the application for protection; and
  5. a sample of the actual trademark label used with the trademark owner’s products.

The filing of an application with the DIP is the official method outlined in the Notification of the Ministry of Commerce, and is useful in terms of having an official record of the mark with the DIP. 

After the trademark owner has notified the DIP by submitting all of the evidence prescribed by the Notification, the registrar will officially forward the request and all supporting documents to Customs for its records. Once the details of the trademarks are recorded in the relevant Customs systems, they will be accessible to Customs agents throughout Thailand. 

At this stage, customs recordation with the DIP is strongly recommended, because the Thai Customs authorities have been very active in seizing counterfeit goods imported into or exported out of Thailand. Stopping counterfeit goods at the border is a very effective tool to tackle the problem of counterfeit goods.

Download Full Article
Related Professionals

Practices

Intellectual Property

Location

RELATED INSIGHTS​ 

August 20, 2026
As part of its membership in Lex Mundi, Tilleke & Gibbins has released the latest edition of its Guide to Doing Business in Thailand, providing an overview of the legal, regulatory, and commercial considerations for companies establishing or expanding operations in Thailand. The 2026 edition offers practical insight into the country’s business environment, investment framework, and operational requirements. The guide covers a wide range of topics relevant to foreign and domestic investors, including: Investment incentives and promotion schemes Financial facilities and banking regulations Exchange controls and money transfers Import and export regulations Business structures and incorporation options Requirements for establishing a business Operational and compliance considerations Business cessation and insolvency procedures Employment and labor laws Taxation Immigration and visa requirements Prepared by Tilleke & Gibbins lawyers across multiple practice areas, the publication outlines key aspects of doing business in Thailand, including foreign investment restrictions, regulatory compliance obligations, corporate structures, employment requirements, and recent legal and economic developments affecting investors. The publication forms part of Lex Mundi’s Country Guides series, a global collection of jurisdiction-specific reference materials prepared by member firms around the world. Together, these guides help companies evaluate opportunities, compare regulatory environments, and plan international business activities across multiple markets. The full Guide to Doing Business in Thailand 2026 is available through the button below.
Read More
August 13, 2026
Modern agricultural machinery is no longer purely mechanical but instead technology dependent. Modern tractors, harvesters, and other farm equipment increasingly incorporate embedded software, electronic control units, sensors, and digital diagnostic systems. While such technologies enhance efficiency, productivity, and precision farming, they also affect the manner of equipment repair and maintenance. As a result, farmers and independent repair providers may have little practical choice but to rely on authorized dealers, even for routine maintenance and repairs. Section 36 of Thailand’s Patent Act reflects the principle that the authorized sale of a patented invention usually exhausts the exclusive right of the patent owner over the specific product. This means that upon legal sale of the patented product, it can typically be used or resold without further authorization from the patent holder. This principle is relatively straightforward when applied to traditional mechanical equipment. Ownership of a machine ordinarily carries with it the practical ability to diagnose faults, replace worn parts, and restore the equipment to working order. Modern agricultural machinery, however, increasingly depends on embedded software, proprietary diagnostic systems, firmware updates, and other digital resources that may remain under the control of the manufacturer or patent holder. This tension lies within the “right to repair” debate. In the United States, on July 8, 2026, the Federal Trade Commission and five states announced a settlement with Deere & Company resolving allegations that Deere had unlawfully restricted farmers’ and independent repair providers’ ability to repair their equipment. Under the terms of the settlement, for the next ten years, Deere must provide repair resources, including software capabilities, on terms equivalent to those provided to authorized dealers. The Deere settlement highlights that the nature of ownership is changing, but legal concepts have not kept pace. Traditional patent-law concepts, including patent exhaustion, were developed with physical products
Read More
August 10, 2026
Thailand has finalized its social media KYC (“know your customer”) rules under Notification of the Electronic Transactions Commission on Measures to Prevent Technological Crimes for Social Media Service Providers (No. 2), which was published in the Government Gazette on May 5, 2026, and will take effect on November 1, 2026. While an early draft of the notification proposed requiring social media platforms to arrange identification of every user account, the final notification is significantly more targeted, focusing on paid online advertising and advertiser identity verification. Though the regulatory initiative primarily aims to combat online fraud and technology-related crimes, it also has important consequences for intellectual property enforcement, because the verified platform records that will be generated under the new requirements can help IP rights holders to identify anonymous online infringers. Key Regulatory Mandates The notification requires social media service providers to verify the identity of advertisers before their paid advertisements are published and disseminated in Thailand through social media, regardless of whether the advertising fees come from the advertisers or third parties. Verification of an advertiser is valid for one year, after which verification would have to be performed again before the platform could publish additional paid advertisements from the advertiser. Permitted verification methods are specified under the notification. A platform may verify an advertiser by checking identity evidence and confirming the connection between the advertiser and that identity evidence, with the notification giving facial comparison against certain government-issued identity documents as an example. Alternatively, platforms may verify advertisers through a digital identity verification and authentication system with an identity-proofing assurance level not lower than the level prescribed by Thailand’s Electronic Transactions Commission. The notification further requires platforms to retain only the advertiser’s information necessary to identify the advertiser, beginning from the start of the advertising activity and for
Read More
August 6, 2026
Introduction: A Trademark Paradox in Sustainable Packaging Walk into any Thai supermarket, and the label-free water bottle is no longer a novelty. Thailand’s packaging market, valued at approximately USD 15.68 billion in 2025, is shifting toward minimalist, plastic-light designs as ESG pressures reshape how brands present their products. The country generated roughly 5.68 million tons of plastic waste in 2021, with a recycling rate of only 19 percent, and regulators are now considering rules that would allow label-free bottled water relying on embossing, laser printing, or QR codes instead of wrap-around labels. As packaging itself becomes the brand identifier, a paradox emerges: designs built to say the least often struggle hardest for protection under Thai intellectual property law. The Trademark Barrier: When Shape Is Not Enough Section 7, paragraph 2(10) of the Thai Trademark Act deems a shape distinctive only if it is not the natural form of the goods, is not necessary to achieve a technical result, and does not add value to the goods. The Department of Intellectual Property’s 2022 examination guidelines apply this test conservatively, as the following examples illustrate. A plain water bottle relying on subtle contours to signal its brand is typically read as just another bottle, not a source identifier. Acquired distinctiveness offers a theoretical escape route, but it demands extensive evidence of sales, advertising, and consumer recognition—an especially heavy burden for new entrants whose minimalist packaging has not yet achieved market prominence. The result is a structural bias against precisely the design innovation that sustainability goals are meant to encourage. Design Patents: A Partial, Imperfect Substitute Design patent protection, covering a product’s shape, configuration, or ornamentation, appears to offer an alternative route. In practice, it is constrained by the same forces driving the minimalist trend. Because many brands converge on similar solutions—clear
Read More