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 24, 2025
Online shopping in Thailand is more accessible than ever, with global platforms, local social media shops, and entertainment-driven social commerce enabling instant purchases. However, this convenience comes with rising concerns over digital intellectual property (IP) infringement, including counterfeit goods, pirated content, and unauthorized brand usage. At first glance, online platforms appear to offer quick solutions. Most major e-commerce sites, social media channels, and social commerce platforms provide “notice and takedown” systems, where IP owners can file complaints and request the removal of listings that infringe IP rights, such as trademarks and copyrights. These tools are certainly useful, as seeing a fake product vanish from a platform feels like progress. But the reality is less reassuring. The counterfeit goods themselves remain in warehouses, markets, or shops, ready to be resold. Sellers whose accounts are taken down often return within days under new names or accounts. In other words, a takedown is like cutting weeds without pulling out the roots: they always grow back. While notice and takedown tools are widely available and can be managed internally by most IP owners, their impact is often short-lived. IP owners seeking more effective, lasting protection need to take a more strategic and multilayered approach. The same applies to online piracy. Unauthorized streaming websites that offer free access to movies, TV shows, or sports broadcasts have become widespread in Thailand. To combat this, rightsholders can request website blocking under the Computer Crime Act, through the Ministry of Digital Economy and Society and the courts. Once requests are approved, internet service providers are ordered to block access to infringing sites. Blocking orders can be effective in disrupting large-scale piracy operations, but they also face limitations—pirate sites frequently reappear under new domains. Strategic Protection Whether the infringing material is physical counterfeit goods or intangible streaming content,
Read More
September 4, 2025
On June 6, 2025, the Superior People’s Court in Hanoi overturned a non-use cancellation decision by the Intellectual Property Office of Vietnam, a rare and impactful occurrence. In a ruling that may help clarify the enforcement of Vietnam’s IP Law, the court held that valid trademark use can be established through commercial arrangements where the brand owner maintains actual control over the use of the mark, and is not confined to relationships governed by a so-called “formal license agreement. Background: Cross-Border Use, Local Challenge A Singapore company owns a well-known brand of consumer products that has gained recognition across Southeast Asia. In recent years, the brand has been targeted by several unauthorized trademark filings in Vietnam. In one such instance, a local Vietnamese trading company—previously linked to the production and export of counterfeit goods to neighboring countries—filed a non-use cancellation against the Singapore company’s mark and sought to register it under its own name. If the cancellation had been upheld, it would have enabled a complete hijacking of the brand. The IP holder operates in Vietnam through a structured cross-border supply chain. Under an agreement between two related foreign entities, one of which managed regional operations, production orders were placed through a designated Vietnamese company. While the Vietnamese manufacturer was not a party to the agreement, its role in using the mark was recognized and governed by internal and commercial documentation. The Vietnamese manufacturer lawfully obtained the necessary permits, regulatory approvals, and customs clearances for producing the goods in Vietnam. These activities were supported by banking records and internal communications, evidencing active, continuous use of the mark in Vietnam. However, the IP Office concluded that this use did not meet the statutory criteria because the Vietnamese manufacturer did not have a direct license agreement with the brand owner, as
Read More
August 25, 2025
Indonesia’s current regulations on franchises, as stipulated under Government Regulation No. 35/2024 on Franchising and its implementing regulation, Ministry of Trade (MOT) Regulation No. 71/2019 regarding Implementation of Franchising, highlight fundamental changes in franchise registration. These changes have introduced additional complexities and challenges in the franchise registration procedure, making it more difficult for franchise owners to navigate the process. New procedure Franchise applications are still submitted through the Online Single Submission (OSS) portal of the Capital Investment Coordinating Board (BKPM). However, the new procedure requires each applicant, including foreign franchisors, to have an OSS account and a business registration number (NIB) issued by BKPM. An application for franchise registration must be submitted under the applicant’s own account—submissions can no longer be made through the account of a consultant. Once a franchise application is submitted, the authority will distribute the submission to the MOT—the authorized ministry for franchise registration. Any notification or decision upon the registration made by the MOT will be available in the OSS system. Applicants should regularly monitor the status of the franchise application because no notifications will be sent to applicants to alert them of any deficiency. Here is the summary of the new procedure for franchisors: Notable Requirements The disclosure document, or prospectus, is the key focus for the MOT in examining a franchise registration for a franchisor. This document is subject to thorough scrutiny by the MOT to ensure that all mandatory information meets the requirements set in the franchise regulations. The current regulations specifically require that the mandatory clause “business system” in the prospectus cover operational standards and procedures, which should include human resource management, administration, operational management, standard operating methods, business location selection, business premises design, employee requirements, and marketing strategies. Other clauses that are equally important to pay attention to are:
Read More
August 21, 2025
Although the “passing off” principle has sometimes faced criticism for potentially broadening trademark protection—particularly in cases involving unregistered or unconventional marks like shapes, scents, or sounds—it serves an essential purpose. It safeguards the rights of business owners and shields consumers from deception, ensuring fair competition and reflecting the realities of modern commerce. What is passing off, and why is registrability not required? The passing-off principle is a legal concept rooted in English law, aimed at preventing a person from falsely representing or using a mark similar to another’s in a way that causes consumers to mistakenly believe the goods or services come from the same source. Under Thai law, the passing-off principle is provided under Section 46 of the Thai Trademark Act, which states: No person shall be entitled to bring legal proceedings to prevent or to recover damages for the infringement of an unregistered trademark. The provisions of this Section shall not affect the right of the owner of an unregistered trademark to bring legal proceedings against any person for passing off goods as those of the owner of the trademark. The passing-off principle can be interpreted as a practical legal concept. It does not require proof that the mark is registrable or meets the registrability criteria under trademark law. It is sufficient to show that the mark has established goodwill and that the other party’s use of a similar mark is likely to confuse consumers, making it a straightforward and effective tool for protecting brand assets. Requiring a claimant to prove that an unregistered mark could have been registered would undermine the very function of passing off. The doctrine was conceived precisely to fill the gaps left by the registration system. Imposing registrability criteria would nullify its function and leave many commercially valuable identifiers unprotected. If the
Read More