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 Progress Toward Joining the Hague Agreement

Subscribe to Updates
Informed Counsel

As ASEAN works toward greater unification, a number of action plans have been devised to accelerate integration. One such plan is the ASEAN Intellectual Property Rights Action Plan 2011-2015 (ASEAN IPR Action Plan), which has formulated strategic goals to increase the competitiveness of the ASEAN Economic Community with respect to the use of intellectual property.

A core tenet of the ASEAN IPR Action Plan is for ASEAN member countries to become contracting parties to the Hague Agreement, in order to implement a system for industrial design registration that is common to the region. The system would allow applicants to file a singular, international industrial design application and registration covering one or more member states directly with the World Intellectual Property Organization (WIPO) or through a receiving office. Once an application has been filed, WIPO examines the application to ensure that it complies with the formal requirements, and then it publishes the international registration. All designated member countries are then notified of the registration and must provide a decision to register the industrial design or deny registration within 6 months of the publication of the international registration or, alternatively, within 12 months of the publication where that member country has an opposition system.

As part of Thailand’s accession to the Hague Agreement, the country’s Department of Intellectual Property (DIP) commissioned an independent study on managing design applications under the Hague Agreement. The study gathered information, such as the design community’s opinions regarding the current design system and the opinions of interested parties including government personnel and the private sector, and reviewed how other Hague Agreement member countries manage Hague Agreement applications. Finally, the study compared the information that was gathered to the current Thai design registration system.

Section 3 of the Thai Patent Act defines a design as “any form or composition of the lines or colors which gives a special appearance to a product and can serve as a pattern for a product of industry or handicraft.” Thus, a design includes product packaging and product design. Because Thailand does not allow registration of trade dress,  a design patent application is an alternative form of protection.

Presently, Thai patent law does not allow applications that contain multiple designs. According to Section 60 of the Thai Patent Act, an application for a patent must relate to a design to be used with only one product. The patent application must contain seven views of the design, and drawings or photographs should be in black and white unless a particular color is sought for protection. If protection is sought for a particular color, the drawings should be submitted in color and the claim should include a claim for color. Partial designs are not allowed.

Once an applicant submits an application, an examiner will conduct a formality examination to determine whether it meets the formal requirements. After the formality examination is completed, the application is published, and there is an opposition period of 90 days. After 90 days, the application proceeds to the substantive examination stage.

Substantive examination involves checking that a design is new, not contrary to public order or morality, and is not a design prescribed by a Royal Decree, as found in Sections 56 to 58 of the Patent Act. Once substantive examination is successfully completed, the application proceeds to grant. The period of protection is ten years from the filing date, and annuities are payable from the fifth to tenth years.

The DIP-commissioned study revealed a number of challenges in Thailand’s current design system. One challenge is that the system is limited by the small number of examiners, meaning that examination proceeds at a sluggish pace. The existing backlog contributes to the predicament. Furthermore, applications are not filed electronically and there is no database of applications.

To overcome these challenges and prepare Thailand for accession to the Hague Agreement, the DIP will discuss the following possible changes:

  1. pay government fees relating to the entire process up front;
  2. allow multiple design applications;
  3. no novelty examination during substantive examinations;
  4. increase the term of protection to 15 years; and
  5. no direct acceptance of international applications.

Though many hurdles remain, the DIP has endeavored to hasten the design patent examination process. The study’s proposed changes, combined with the DIP’s efforts to advance the prosecution of design registrations, will assist Thailand in its aim to become a contracting party to the Hague Agreement.

Download Full Article
Related Professionals

Practices

Intellectual Property

Location

RELATED INSIGHTS​ 

September 30, 2026
Packaging is a valuable commercial asset that helps consumers identify and distinguish products through their shape, colors, graphics, labels, and overall presentation. Obtaining legal protections for these assets is thus an important step. Businesses entering into or operating in the Myanmar market should assess whether trademark protection, industrial design protection, or both provide the strongest IP strategy for these features. The country’s Intellectual Property Department (IPD) under the Ministry of Commerce now administers trademark and industrial design registrations since Myanmar’s modernization of its intellectual property framework through the enactment of four key IP laws in 2019. Trademark Protection for Packaging Under the Trademark Law 2019, a “mark” is any visually perceptible sign, including words, names, letters, numerals, figurative elements, color combinations, or combinations of these signs, capable of distinguishing one undertaking’s goods or services from another’s. Trademark protection may therefore extend to certain elements of product packaging that function as source identifiers. Depending on their presentation and distinctiveness, packaging elements such as brand names, logos, labels, configurations, color combinations, and three-dimensional (3D) shapes may qualify for trademark protection. However, under the current practice of the IPD and its available examination guidelines, the packaging and  trade dress (including product get-up) are not expressly recognized as separate registrable subject matter in Myanmar. Under the Trademark Law 2019, trademark infringement—including unauthorized use of a registered mark on packaging—may give rise to civil remedies, including injunctions and damages, as well as criminal penalties. A 3D mark may protect packaging shape or configuration if it has acquired distinctiveness through use and consumers associate it with the relevant products. However, a shape dictated by a functional or technical purpose is ineligible for registration. Registration of a 3D mark may be renewed indefinitely for successive ten-year periods, subject to compliance with renewal requirements. Industrial Design Protection
Read More
September 30, 2026
Under Thailand’s Patent Act B.E. 2522 (1979), any person may raise the invalidity of a patent as a matter of defense. However, the right to initiate court proceedings to cancel a patent is reserved exclusively for an “interested person” or the public prosecutor. This distinction between merely challenging validity and initiating judicial revocation proceedings has given rise to a significant body of Supreme Court (Dika) jurisprudence interpreting who qualifies as an “interested person” under the Patent Act. Statutory Framework Section 54 of the Patent Act provides that any invention patent granted not in compliance with the patentability requirements will be invalid, and that a petition to cancel such a patent may be submitted to the court by any “interested person” or the public prosecutor. Section 64 mirrors this provision for design patents, and section 65 novies extends the same framework to petty patents. However, none of these provisions defines the term “interested person,” leaving its interpretation to the courts. Supreme Court Interpretation The Thai Supreme Court has developed a consistent body of case law establishing that an “interested person” must be someone directly affected by the existence of the patent—not simply any member of the public. In 1989, the court found (Dika No. 2670/2532) that a party whose intended use of the patented technology was still in a preparatory stage—before actual manufacturing had commenced—did not qualify as an interested person. However, in 2009 the Supreme Court further elaborated  (Dika No. 2906/2552) that an interested party is one whose rights to utilize the invention are restricted by virtue of the patent, such as a manufacturer or producer whose operations are directly impacted by the patentee’s exclusive rights. In the 2008 case of T.M. Grating Steel Co., Ltd. v. Billion Mass Industry Co., Ltd. (Dika No. 974/2551), where the plaintiff had
Read More
September 24, 2026
Vietnam is implementing and developing a broad package of regulatory reforms that could reshape how IP, data, digital platforms, and product authenticity are regulated and enforced. Several of the key measures have been led by the Ministry of Public Security in its legislative and administrative capacity, as part of a broader government effort. The core reform package consists of four key legal instruments: proposed amendments to the Criminal Code, a proposed new Data Security Law, a draft Decree on Product Identification, Authentication and Traceability, and the newly enacted Decree No. 330/2026/ND-CP. These instruments include rules on criminal enforcement, data security, electronic identification, product identification and traceability, administrative violations, and cybersecurity sanctions. Combined, these measures will affect copyright enforcement, industrial property rights, trade secrets, AI training data, product provenance, online takedowns, valuation of counterfeit goods and electronic evidence. It is worth noting that, in addition to strengthening criminal penalties for IP crimes, Vietnam’s emerging regulatory framework increasingly treats infringement, data misuse, product authentication, and platform-enabled violations as interconnected regulatory and enforcement challenges. For rights holders and foreign investors, this could mean stronger tools against counterfeiting and online infringement, but also more compliance obligations around data, traceability, AI, platform controls and government-facing reporting. Expansion of Criminal IP Enforcement Proposed amendments to Article 225 of the Criminal Code would expand criminal copyright exposure beyond reproduction and distribution to cover large-scale commercial public performance and online communication of works, phonograms and video recordings. This is important because piracy is increasingly about streaming, unauthorized communication, and platform access models rather than physical copying. Aggravated copyright infringement could be subject to up to 10 years in prison for individuals and fines of up to VND 6 billion (about USD 228,300) for commercial legal entities. The amended Article 226 would expand criminal industrial property liability beyond
Read More
September 21, 2026
Thailand’s first-to-file trademark system has a serious vulnerability: it lacks both an explicit mechanism for refusing bad-faith registrations and any means of invalidating them in court after the five-year limitation period has expired. While brand owners worldwide confront trademark squatting, Thailand’s statutory silence stands out, particularly in light of AIPPI’s 2017 Resolution Q249, which recommended that every jurisdiction provide clear tools to address bad faith at all stages of the trademark lifecycle. Nearly a decade later, Thailand has yet to act. This article proposes a concrete reform blueprint, drawing on the legislative models of China, the United Kingdom, and the European Union. The Statutory Gap Under the Thai Trademark Act B.E. 2534, no provision expressly authorizes examiners to reject an application on grounds of bad faith. Section 8(10) addresses well-known marks but offers no relief where the targeted mark lacks well-known status. Practitioners have resorted to Section 8(9)—which bars marks “contrary to public order, morality, or public policy”—as a workaround. However, this provision was designed to address the characteristics of the mark itself, not the applicant’s intent. Thai Supreme Court decisions have split on whether it can reach bad-faith conduct, creating persistent legal uncertainty. The gap extends beyond examination. Civil actions to cancel a bad-faith registration must be brought within five years—a deadline that frequently expires before foreign brand owners discover the squatted mark. Cancellation through the Board of Trademarks remains available but is slow, costly, and subject to court appeal, leaving bad-faith registrations in force during protracted proceedings. The system effectively rewards squatters and penalizes legitimate owners. Lessons from International Best Practices Several major jurisdictions have already closed this gap. China’s 2019 amendment to Article 4 of the Trademark Law introduced an absolute ground for refusal: “bad faith trademark applications without intent to use shall be rejected.” Bad
Read More