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​ 

June 5, 2026
Vietnam’s AI regulatory framework has reached an important milestone. While the Law on Artificial Intelligence No. 134/2025/QH15 (AI Law) established the foundation for AI governance, many practical compliance requirements were left to implementing regulations. On April 30, 2026, the government issued Decree No. 142/2026/ND-CP (Decree 142), which took effect on May 1, 2026, and provides the first detailed guidance on the implementation of the AI Law. Although an official list of high-risk AI systems is still pending from the prime minister, Decree 142 provides valuable insight into how Vietnam’s risk-based AI regulatory framework will operate in practice. Risk Classification Framework The AI Law adopts a risk-based approach under which AI systems are classified as high-risk, medium-risk, or low-risk. Decree 142 builds on this framework by providing detailed guidance on how these classifications are determined. High-risk AI systems are determined based on factors such as (i) their potential impact on life, health, property, human rights, public interests, or national security; (ii) the sector in which they are deployed; and (iii) the scale of affected users or integration with critical infrastructure. The latest draft list of high-risk AI systems appears to follow these same principles. Medium-risk AI systems generally include systems that may mislead, influence, or manipulate users, particularly where users may not realize they are interacting with AI or AI-generated content. The focus is therefore on transparency and authenticity risks rather than broader societal or safety concerns. Low-risk AI systems are those that do not meet the criteria for either high-risk or medium-risk classification. Importantly, Decree 142 seeks to avoid over-classification. Certain systems may fall outside the high-risk or medium-risk regimes, including internal-use systems, office-support tools, technical editing applications, certain back-end processing systems, and AI systems used in artistic, gaming, cinematic, or other creative contexts. Providers must also review and
Read More
June 5, 2026
On May 11, 2026, Thailand’s Ministry of Social Development and Human Security released a draft Child Protection Act (“CPA”) for public review. The draft CPA would completely repeal and replace the current Child Protection Act B.E. 2546 (2003). This represents the most comprehensive overhaul of Thailand’s child protection framework in over two decades, reflecting the government’s stated objective of modernizing the law to address evolving social challenges—including those arising from digital technology—and to promote greater coordination among government agencies, local authorities, and civil society. The public review period closes on June 9, 2026. Key changes introduced by the draft CPA that could have significant implications for businesses, particularly online platform providers, media companies, and entities operating child-related services in Thailand, are set out below. Expanded Definition of “Child” Under the current CPA, a “child” is defined as a person under the age of 18, excluding those who have attained legal majority through marriage. The draft CPA removes the marriage exception entirely, broadening the scope of the law’s protections to include all individuals under 18 without exception. Replacement of “Abuse” with Broader Concept of “Violence” The current CPA uses the term “abuse/cruelty,” which covers acts causing harm to a child’s liberty, body, or mind; sexual offenses against children; and using children in harmful or immoral activities. The draft CPA replaces this with the broader concept of “violence,” which encompasses any act or omission causing harm to a child’s body, mind, or development; abandonment or neglect; improper exploitation; and sexual abuse. Notably, the new definition adds developmental harm as a recognized category of injury and captures all forms of misconduct regardless of the child’s consent. New Standalone Definition of Sexual Abuse, Including Online Conduct One of the most significant additions in the draft CPA is the introduction of a standalone definition
Read More
May 25, 2026
After several years of policy discussion and continued efforts led by the Ministry of Commerce (MOC) to relax the list of reserved businesses under the Foreign Business Act B.E. 2542 (1999) (FBA), the reform process has now reached a significant milestone. On May 12, 2026, the Thai cabinet approved in principle two draft subordinate legislative instruments aimed at delisting certain reserved business activities under the FBA and reducing licensing requirements for foreign business operators. These developments signal a renewed and concrete effort by the government to modernize Thailand’s business regulatory framework in order to attract foreign investment and boost Thailand’s competitiveness in the global market. Nine Businesses Set for FBA Delisting Below is a list of the nine businesses that are being targeted for delisting from the FBA’s restrictions. A draft ministerial regulation would delist the first eight reserved businesses, while a royal decree has been drafted to delist the ninth business: Telecommunications services (Type 1 license only, covering operators without their own telecommunications infrastructure), under the supervision of the Office of the National Broadcasting and Telecommunications Commission. Treasury center services subject to the Foreign Exchange Control Act B.E. 2485 and under the supervision of the Bank of Thailand. Securities-collateralized lending, pursuant to the laws governing securities and exchange and derivatives regulated by the Securities and Exchange Commission. Agency, dealer, advisory, or fund management services relating to derivatives where the underlying assets fall outside the scope of the Derivatives Act B.E. 2546 (2003) Intra-group shared services, including administrative, human resources, and IT functions Intra-group domestic debt guarantee services Leasing of partial space for installation of financial service machines and automatic vending machines for employee use Petroleum drilling services Trading of agricultural product derivatives through a futures exchange, with physical delivery or receipt of agricultural products at a futures exchange–designated
Read More
May 25, 2026
Thailand published new rules on May 1, 2026, establishing clear procedures for how the Anti-Money Laundering Office (AMLO) handles digital assets seized during criminal and money laundering investigations. Taking effect the following day, the Regulation of the Anti-Money Laundering Board on the Custody and Management of Seized or Frozen Assets (No. 3) B.E. 2569 applies to digital asset businesses, cryptocurrency holders, and anyone subject to asset seizure under Thailand’s anti-money laundering laws. For the first time, authorities now have a detailed roadmap for transferring seized digital property from private or foreign control into secure state custody. Digital asset businesses holding customer assets under investigation must be prepared to comply with these rules compelling repatriation of such assets in enforcement actions. Expanded Definition of Digital Assets The regulation defines digital assets to include not only those covered by Thailand’s existing digital asset business law but also any other property that can be stored using the same methods as digital assets. This broad formulation means the custody rules will apply to emerging blockchain-based assets and tokenized property that may not yet fall within the statutory definition of a digital asset business, giving authorities flexibility as the technology evolves. Mandatory Transfer to Domestic Custody When digital assets are held with service providers outside Thailand, AMLO will first attempt to transfer them to an account the office maintains with a licensed domestic digital asset business operator. If the domestic operator does not support that particular asset, the office will instead move the assets to its own cold wallet (offline, internet-isolated storage system). If neither option is feasible, the seizing official will report the situation to the Anti-Money Laundering Committee for alternative instructions. A similar hierarchy governs assets held in an accused party’s private wallet or by any third party that is not a
Read More