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​ 

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
July 6, 2026
Indonesia’s regulation on reporting online intellectual property (IP) infringement provides comprehensive procedural guidance for IP rights holders and their licensees in reporting online infringement complaints. Issued in December 2025 by the Ministry of Law as Regulation No. 47 of 2025 regarding Handling of Intellectual Property Infringement Reports in Electronic Systems, this regulation covers all types of IP rights. It also specifies documentation when reporting infringement, and lays out the procedures for examination, verification, and enforcement actions. Submission of Complaints Complainants may submit reports through the online system of the Directorate General of Intellectual Property (DGIP) or in person at the DGIP office. Complaints may also be filed through an authorized proxy. Under the regulation, complainants are required to provide the following information and documents: Personal details of the complainant; Brief description of the protected work or subject matter (i.e., type of IP and name or address of the infringing website, portal, account, or application, or a link to the location of the infringing content); Complete description of the alleged infringement; Certificate of registration or recordal of the relevant IP; Recordal of IP license agreement, if any; and Other supporting evidence. Verification and Examination Process Upon receiving a complaint, the responsible formality officer may request clarification or additional supporting documents. In the latter case, the complainant must then submit the necessary administrative documents within 14 days of the notification date. Once the documentation is deemed complete and sufficient, the case will be formally registered. Subsequently, the DGIP will establish a verification team to handle online IP violations, which will include the Civil Servant Investigator (PPNS), the Ministry of Communication and Digital Affairs, experts with relevant expertise in IP, and representatives from related associations such as AVISI (Indonesian Video Streaming Association). After examining the report, the team will prepare the Minutes
Read More