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

March 6, 2019

Thailand’s Patent Office Granted Power to Strike-Out Cannabinoid Patents

Subscribe to Updates
Informed Counsel

On January 28, 2019, Thailand’s National Council for Peace and Order issued Order No. 1/2562 (the Order) granting the Department of Intellectual Property (DIP) the right to suspend cannabis-related patent applications on legal grounds. This development is in response to the ongoing legalization of medical cannabis in Thailand, and has raised a number of thought-provoking issues.

The NCPO Order    

The Order, issued under the executive powers granted to the military government under Section 44 of Thailand’s interim constitution, includes the right to “refuse the grant of patent” if it appears that the invention under the application has a commercial application and contains:

a)    cannabis or cannabinoids;
b)    substances having similar structural compounds; or
c)    pharmaceutically acceptable salts, esters or ethers of (a) or (b).

This order empowers the DIP Director-General to reject cannabis-related patent applications, or to request the removal of published applications that have not yet entered into substantive examination, on the grounds that cannabis-related applications are not patentable as they are against public order, morality, public health, or welfare (per Section 9(5) of the Thai Patent Act B.E. 2522 (1979).    

Any affected applicants have a right to appeal to the Board of Patents, under Section 72 of the Thai Patent Act, within 60 days of receiving the cancellation order.

Amendments to the Narcotics Act    

To understand the impact of this order, it is useful to understand its place in the broader context—notably the pending amendments to Thailand’s Narcotics Act (the Amendments) that will partially legalize medical cannabis in Thailand. The Amendments passed the final review stage at the National Legislative Assembly on December 25, 2018, and are currently waiting to be signed into law by the monarch. Once signed, the law will be published in the Royal Gazette, and will become effective shortly after. The practical implementation  of the Amendments (including administrative procedures, application processes, required supporting documents, etc.) will depend on Ministerial Regulations to be issued at an as-yet undetermined time after the law becomes effective.

The Amendments are intended to redress the balance between regulatory control and public health needs, by relaxing regulations to allow medical uses of marijuana (both for treatment and research). It should be noted that the present “legalization” does not result in a complete freedom to use, but a new framework for streamlined licensing under set rules and conditions. Even under the amended Narcotics Act, cannabis will still classified as Category 5 Narcotic, and handling cannabis without a license from the Thai FDA will still be generally unlawful.     

Given the diverse array of national objectives, the Amendments will play a role in determining what qualifies as medical cannabis, who can obtain permission to produce or research it, and how such permission can be sought.

Implications on Patenting   

In the meantime, however, holders of patents relating to cannabis derivatives in other countries have sought to protect their intellectual assets in Thailand before the Amendments come into effect, to ensure that they are safeguarded when they do. This raised the difficult decision of whether to patent something that would, under existing law, potentially be unlawful to use and contrary to “public order and morality.” The Order clarifies this difficult decision by effectively providing the answer—those patents can be refused.    

However, this is far from an absolute ban, and in this context the Order has merely served as the gatekeeper—deciding when to “start the game” on determining patent applications during the period before the Amendments take effect. After the Amendments take effect, the Order prescribes that deliberation of decisions to grant patents will return to normal. The consideration of public order and morality when determining patent applications for cannabis-related inventions will be undertaken based on Section 9(5) of the Patent Act and the Narcotics Act as amended. In other words, medicinal applications for cannabis would be patentable, but recreational applications would not.

Difficulties with the Order and the Amendments   

Arguably, this administrative patent procedure may be viewed as a violation of the World Trade Organization Agreement on Trade-Related Aspects of Intellectual Property Rights Agreement (TRIPS). Section 27.1 of TRIPS states that patent rights shall be available in all fields of tech-    nology. As such, in order to assess whether an invention is contrary to public order or morality, the same criteria must  be applied to all inventions uniformly, regardless of the invention’s field.   

In addition, the public order argument is also troubling. Assuming that the public order justification relates to the narcotic effects of some cannabis derivatives, in determining whether a particular commercial exploitation really is considered to disturb public order and morality, it is important to consider that a single invention may have multiple applications. The simulation or extraction of cannabinoids, in this instance, includes, but it is not limited to, recreational effects, and the non-recreational effects should be considered proportionally.    

Cannabis plants contain a number of active compounds such as THC and CBD—the two most well-known cannabinoids. While THC possesses more psychoactive effects, CBD is prone to having substantial medical benefits. The fact that the cannabinoids possess both therapeutic and recreational effects, however, should not render a method of producing the non-psychoactive compound contrary to public order or morality. Regardless of whether the Amendments have currently come into force, it is incorrect to say that a medicinal application that cannot be applied recreationally, such as an application that produces CBD but cannot produce THC, is against public morality and order.    

In addition, the implications of the Amendments may be different for different parties. Under the Amendments, a licensee for the medical use of cannabis must be a Thai national or a company registered in Thailand, among other restrictions.   

While it cannot be denied that medicalizing cannabis in Thailand will encourage medicinal cannabis research and development in the region, it is important that they are done evenly and without such concerns to ensure that Thailand remains an optimal investment environment.

Download Full Article
Related Professionals

Practices

Intellectual Property

Location

RELATED INSIGHTS​ 

July 24, 2026
As food innovation continues to accelerate, manufacturers are increasingly introducing ingredients derived from new sources, produced using novel technologies, or lacking a significant history of human consumption. While these innovations create new opportunities for the food industry, they also raise important questions regarding consumer safety. For this reason, many jurisdictions, including Thailand, the European Union, Australia and New Zealand, Canada, and Singapore, require a premarket safety assessment for novel food ingredients before they can be placed on the market. The objective of this assessment is to ensure that each ingredient is safe for its intended use and level of consumption, does not present toxicological, allergenic, microbiological, or nutritional concerns, and will not mislead consumers. Scientific authorities typically evaluate the ingredient’s identity, manufacturing process, composition, specifications, anticipated dietary exposure, toxicological information, nutritional impact, and history of use before determining whether it can be marketed. Against this background, the Thai Food and Drug Administration (FDA) recently took an important step toward improving regulatory transparency by publishing, for the first time, a consolidated public list of substances that have successfully completed the Thai FDA’s safety assessment process, including substances determined to be novel foods and those determined not to fall within the novel food category. The list identifies the approved substances, the corresponding manufacturers or importers, approval dates, and the approved conditions of use. Although the publication does not change the existing legal framework governing novel food approvals, it provides businesses with greater visibility into the Thai FDA’s regulatory precedents and the types of substances that have previously been accepted through the safety assessment process. The full announcement is available on the Thai FDA’s website. As the list is now publicly available, it also provides useful insight into the types of substances that have successfully completed the Thai FDA’s safety assessment process.
Read More
July 24, 2026
Indonesia has updated its fee framework for intellectual property (IP)-related government services, with implications for IP owners, licensees, lenders, digital platforms, and businesses operating in the country. Government Regulation No. 30 of 2026 on Types and Tariffs of Non-Tax State Revenue Applicable to the Ministry of Law (GR 30/2026) was promulgated on July 2, 2026, and will take effect on August 1, 2026. Key Takeaways GR 30/2026, which replaces the relevant IP service fees under Government Regulation No. 45 of 2024, reorganizes the fee schedule into separate categories for copyright, industrial designs, patents, layout designs of integrated circuits, trade secrets, trademarks, geographical indications, IP enforcement, and other categories. The most commercially relevant changes include a new copyright recordation tariff exemption for songs and music, higher fees for several trademark and geographical indication services, new IP enforcement service fees, and a new fee type for registration of fiduciary security over IP rights objects. In addition, this is the first major update for trademark fees in approximately 10 years. GR 30/2026 is significant not only as a fee update but also as a further indication of Indonesia’s increasing recognition of IP as a financeable commercial asset. By expressly assigning fees to the registration of fiduciary security over IP rights objects, the regulation places IP-backed collateral filings within the Ministry of Law’s administrative service framework. While GR 30/2026 does not create a new secured-transactions regime, this development is relevant for lenders, borrowers, and IP owners structuring financing arrangements secured by trademarks, patents, copyrights, industrial designs, or other registrable IP rights in Indonesia. Copyright: New Fee Exemption for Songs and Music Recordation For copyright, GR 30/2026 creates a fee-exempt category for recordation of works or related-rights products for songs or music, while maintaining a separate category for other works and related-rights products. It
Read More
July 21, 2026
Thailand’s Ministry of Digital Economy and Society (MDES) published a notification establishing an expedited court-ordered takedown mechanism for online content in cases of “urgent necessity.” The notification, which was issued on July 17, 2026, under the Computer Crime Act B.E. 2550 (2007), as amended, took effect the following day. It significantly expands the categories of content subject to rapid government-initiated removal. Content Categories Subject to Takedown The notification defines “urgent necessity” (section 20, paragraph 5, of the Computer Crime Act) as circumstances where any delay in suppressing computer data may impact national security, religion, the monarchy, good morals, social culture, or public order. In this regard, it establishes four broad categories of content: Computer Crime Act offenses. National security offenses. IP and other criminal offenses, where it is contrary to public order or good morals and a competent officer has requested its suppression. Content contrary to public order or good morals, a broad residual category encompassing 14 subcategories approved by the Computer Data Screening Committee. The fourth category is the most expansive. Its 14 subcategories include: Content defaming, mocking, satirizing, or devaluing the monarchy. Online gambling advertising or facilitation. Offering illegal firearms for sale. Offering baraku (hookah) products or e-cigarettes for sale. Offering cannabis inflorescences or processed cannabis products for sale. Advertising or soliciting prostitution. Content inciting violence, hatred, or social division. Unauthorized overseas employment advertising. Offering boiled kratom juice for sale. Online sale or advertising of alcoholic beverages. Content satirizing or degrading Buddhism. Money lending at interest rates exceeding legally prescribed limits. Advertising or disseminating information about surrogacy services. Forgery of documents, cards, or official documents. Enforcement Procedure In cases of urgent necessity, a competent official assigned by the MDES permanent secretary must file a petition with supporting evidence to the court with jurisdiction, requesting an order to
Read More
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