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

April 11, 2017

Thailand’s New Law for Combating Online IP Infringement

Subscribe to Updates
World Intellectual Property Report, Bloomberg BNA

More and more intellectual property infringement is shifting from physical locations to digital or online venues. Internet user can easily offer counterfeit products for sale through social media or social networks, or upload pirated movies on to websites. In most cases, it is challenging to trace back the infringement activity to catch the actual infringer behind a fake username.

The Thai government has taken notice and tried to address this problem by amending the Copyright Act in 2015. Furthermore, an amendment to the Computer Crime Act gives rights holders a new tool for combating online IP violations, and will be in force in May 2017.

While the two laws have the same goal, they are applied through different approaches. This article will provide an overview of the two different legal approaches in combating online IP infringement and compare them for the benefits of IP owners in choosing the most suitable option to combat online infringement.

Copyright Act

The amended Thai Copyright Act (No. 2), which came into force on August 4, 2015, provides copyright owners with a tool to tackle online infringement. Section 32/3 allows for preliminary injunctions that remove copyright-infringing works from the internet, while at the same time providing an exemption from liability for internet service providers (ISPs).

Under this section, the copyright owner must file a motion with the court requesting an injunction order against the infringing material. The motion must clearly state any information regarding the ISP, infringement claims, and details of the investigation process that will lead to the finding of the infringement and evidence thereof, including the potential damages and other relevant factors.

If all required information is provided and the court sees the necessity, the court may order the ISP to remove the copyright-infringing content. Afterwards, the copyright owner must initiate legal action against the actual infringer within a specified time period.

Obstacles

However, copyright owners have had some issues in getting injunctions under this section. In many of the unsuccessful cases, the court rejected the grant of injunctive relief because copyright owners had, in the court’s view, failed to provide sufficient information, such as details and evidence of the investigation process.

Even if the court grants an injunction order, there are still obstacles in the implementation process. Takedown orders targeting foreign ISPs with servers hosted outside of Thailand are often unenforceable since Section 32/3 does not explicitly provide for website blocking. As a result, some copyright owners have turned their focus to other enforcement options.

Computer Crime Act

Prior to the amendment of the Computer Crime Act (CCA), there was an idea to apply Sections 14(1) and 20 of the old Computer Crime Act B.E. 2550 (2007) to address IP infringement on the internet.

The old CCA provided a mechanism for a government officer to ask the court to block the distribution of forged computer data or false computer data, which were contrary to the public order or good morals. But this approach was not feasible in practice because it was hard to define the act of offering counterfeit goods for sale, or the sharing of pirated movies by internet users, as distributing “forged computer data” or “false computer data.” Thus, officials have been reluctant to take action against these types of IP infringement offenses on the Internet.

Section 20(3) of the Amended Computer Crime Act

Recently, the CCA was amended to solve several issues, including adding new enforcement measures to tackle online IP infringement.

The Computer Crime Act (No. 2) B.E. 2560 (2017), which takes effect on May 24, 2017, provides a permanent injunction to block websites that have online IP-infringing content or for removing such data. Section 20(3) states that where there is dissemination of computer data which is a criminal offense against intellectual property, an official may, with approval from the Minister of Digital Economy and Society, file a motion with evidence to the court requesting the cessation of dissemination or deletion of such computer data from the computer system.

Under the CCA the Ministry of Digital Economy and Society (MDES), and its officials have primary authority related to these provisions.

Implementing the Procedure

In practice, it is usually the IP owner who finds the alleged infringement on a website. The IP owner may provide the URL of the website to an officer of the MDES assigned to investigate and collect evidence for further consideration by the Minister.

Once the Minister approves, the officer will then file a motion with the court requesting that the website be blocked or its content deleted. However, in an urgent case, the officer may file a motion with the court before obtaining approval from the Ministry. If this is the case, the officer must report the matter to the Minister as soon as possible after the motion has been filed.

Finally, if the court grants the request, the officer may either block the website or order the ISP to do so. The rules, timeline, and methods for enforcing the court order are regulated by the Minister’s Notification.

A diagram of the process for blocking computer data that infringes on IP rights under the amended CCA is shown below.

By using the latest amendment of the CCA, an IP owner will be entitled to block the dissemination of IP-infringing data on the internet.

Comparison Between Approaches

With the same aim of combatting online infringement, the two laws are applied through different approaches. If we compare Section 32/3 of the Copyright Act and Section 20(3) of the CCA, we see some differences with respect to the scope of infringement, type of order, available action, and responsible person.

When the case does not involve copyright infringement, the only applicable approach is Section 20(3) of the CCA. However, for a copyright infringement case, rights owners may choose between these two approaches based on their preferred outcome—that is, whether they wish to remove the content or block the website.

In addition, the burden of copyright owners to investigate and collect evidence under Section 32/3 of the Copyright Act is heavier than under the CCA. This is because under the CCA, government officials, or MDES officers, are responsible.

Moreover, the Copyright Act provides preliminary injunctive relief, which requires the copyright owner to initiate legal action after the material has been taken down, while the CCA provides a permanent injunctive relief that does not require further legal action. IP owners should keep these different factors in mind when deciding the appropriate approach to take against online infringement.

Looking Forward

In addition to the latest amendments to the Copyright Act, the amended CCA can be a very effective tool. Section 20(3) is a new approach for IP owners seeking to enforce their rights against IP infringement on websites. With respect to the law in other jurisdictions, it seems website blocking is a new development in combating online infringement. Like all new legal approaches, we hope that the CCA can be applied effectively and fairly, without affecting the pace of technological advancement in Thailand. It will not be until an appropriate test case is considered by the court that we can assess whether the CCA is as an effective tool. The question of how the CCA will be interpreted and applied in practice will depend on the resolve of IP owners, government officials, and the court.

Reproduced with permission from Copyright 2017 The Bureau of National Affairs, Inc. (800-372-1033) www.bna.com.

Download Full Article
Related Professionals

Industries

Technology

Practices

Intellectual Property

Location

RELATED INSIGHTS​ 

January 22, 2026
On January 20, 2026, Vietnam’s Ministry of Finance (MOF) issued Decision No. 96/QD-BTC to formally launch pilot administrative procedures for licensing crypto asset trading market services in Vietnam. The decision took immediate effect and implements the government’s pilot crypto asset market program under Resolution No. 05/2025/NQ-CP. Notably, competent authorities have now begun accepting license applications, marking the first time Vietnam has operationalized a licensing pathway for crypto trading market operators. Administrative Procedures and Applications The decision stipulates procedures for (i) granting, (ii) adjusting, and (iii) revoking licenses to provide services for organizing crypto asset trading markets. It provides detailed, step-by-step guidance for each procedure, including dossier composition, internal review stages, coordination mechanisms, and statutory timelines. These procedures apply specifically to entities seeking to organize and operate crypto asset trading markets within Vietnam’s pilot regulatory framework. The MOF is the authority responsible for reviewing and deciding on the above procedures, with the State Securities Commission acting as the receiving, coordinating, and procedural focal point. For licensing applications, the MOF will coordinate with multiple authorities, including the State Bank of Vietnam and the Ministry of Public Security, particularly in relation to anti-money laundering, cybersecurity, system safety, and risk control requirements. Applications may be submitted in person, by post, or electronically via the National Public Service Portal or the administrative procedure information system, in line with applicable regulations. Statutory processing timelines vary depending on the specific procedure and stage involved. For applications to obtain a license to organize a crypto asset trading market, the process is conducted in multiple phases: The MOF will issue an initial written response within 20 working days from receipt of a complete and valid initial dossier, following which, upon submission of the full set of required documents, the MOF will complete substantive review and issue the license
Read More
January 21, 2026
On January 16, 2026, Thailand’s Electronic Transactions Committee released for public comment a draft notification that would require social media platforms operating in Thailand to implement identity verification for all user accounts and advertisers, with enhanced scrutiny for high-risk advertising activities. If finalized in its current form, the Notification on Measures to Prevent Technology Crime for Social Media Service Providers would take effect 180 days after publication in the Government Gazette, fundamentally changing how platforms verify users and monetize advertising services. The public comment period is open through February 2, 2026. Mandatory User and Advertiser Identity Verification The draft establishes a universal requirement that all social media service providers implement identity verification measures for every user account. The draft imposes stricter verification obligations for advertisers than for general users. Before publishing any advertisement, platforms must verify the advertiser’s identity at a level sufficient to identify the advertiser, unless the advertiser has previously completed verification. Risk-Based Advertisement Verification The identification requirements for advertisers will be more stringent in the following cases: The advertiser has a history of user complaints or has previously violated the platform’s terms of service. The advertisement involves finance, investment, loans, sensitive personal data, or content flagged as potentially involving cybercrime. The advertisement specifically targets vulnerable groups, such as the elderly or other at-risk demographics. In such cases, platforms must conduct identity verification using government-issued identification documents and must confirm the accuracy, authenticity, and currency of these documents with the issuing government agencies. Alternatively, platforms may verify identity through an eligible digital identity verification and authentication system provider. Information Retention Platforms must retain specific information for each advertiser, including the name of the individual or juristic person and any representatives, government-issued identification documents such as ID cards, passports, or certificates of incorporation, and reachable contact information including
Read More
January 21, 2026
Spurred by global geopolitics and Canada’s Indo-Pacific Strategy, which aims to forge deeper ties with ASEAN, Canadian companies have been showing growing interest in Thailand and Southeast Asia in recent years. To understand the opportunities offered by the region, we sat down with Andrew Stoutley, a Toronto native and the chief operating officer of Tilleke & Gibbins, a leading Southeast Asian regional law firm with over 130 years of history in Thailand. Q: Why are Canadian companies looking at Thailand and Southeast Asia right now? A: Two reasons stand out. First, diversification has moved up the agenda. Many Canadian companies want options outside North America due to tariff volatility and policy uncertainty in the United States, as well as questions around the next Canada–United States–Mexico Agreement mandatory joint review. At the same time, the shift of global production from China to Southeast Asia is accelerating, driven by rising costs, geopolitics, and the need to avoid overreliance on a single market. As a result, Canadian companies are looking for a second production base or a regional hub, and Thailand and its neighbors are natural choices given their manufacturing depth, location, and established supply chains. Second, Canada’s own efforts in the region are gaining traction. The Indo-Pacific Strategy has led to more on-the-ground support, including larger trade missions, upgraded diplomatic posts, and new financing options. Export Development Canada (EDC) now has a presence in Bangkok, giving Canadian companies a direct line to financing and insurance in Thailand. There’s also steady progress on trade frameworks like the recently signed Canada–Indonesia Comprehensive Economic Partnership Agreement (which will come into effect pending domestic procedures), ongoing negotiations of a Canada–ASEAN FTA, and the exciting announcement about the launch of negotiations of a Canada–Thailand FTA. Together, these developments have the potential to make it much easier
Read More
January 13, 2026
On January 9, 2026, Thailand’s Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) filed a criminal complaint with the Economic Crime Suppression Division (ECD) against five individuals for unauthorized operation of a digital-asset dealer business under the Emergency Decree on Digital Asset Businesses B.E. 2561 (2018). This precedent-setting case signals that the regulator is willing to pursue crypto enforcement against natural persons even in the absence of a licensed platform entity. Background and Implications The case follows the SEC’s October 2025 public warning about the use of iris-scanning technology in exchange for certain digital tokens. In its warning, the SEC cautioned that exchanging or trading these specific tokens with unlicensed service providers exposes users to heightened fraud, scam, and money laundering risks. Unlike prior regulatory enforcement matters, which involved platform-level administrative fines for operational or compliance failures, this case targets misconduct by individuals who may not be professional traders but openly advertised their willingness to buy these tokens from the public, opened individual over-the-counter (OTC) trade channels for these tokens, and facilitated off-exchange transactions in a manner resembling ordinary commercial dealing. This enforcement action establishes a clear precedent that natural persons engaging in public-facing digital-asset dealing may face criminal liability under Thai law, even without operating through a corporate or licensed platform structure. Outlook The alleged offenders may not settle this crime by payment of fines. Following the SEC’s referral, the ECD will undertake further investigation, after which prosecutors may review the case and proceed to court. The SEC has stated that it will cooperate fully with enforcement agencies throughout the criminal enforcement process.
Read More