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​ 

October 23, 2025
Myanmar’s customs authorities have introduced new procedures allowing copyright holders to protect their intellectual property from infringing goods at the border. The Ministry of Finance and Revenue issued Notification No. 107/2025 on September 11, 2025, establishing rules and requirements for customs recordation under the Copyright Law of 2019. The notification includes eight official forms for copyright-related customs matters—three for applicants and five for the Customs Department. This was followed by Customs Department Announcement No. 1/2025, dated September 29, 2025, which details the security required for suspended goods. Customs recordation provides a proactive mechanism for rights holders to prevent importation of pirated works. By registering their works with the Customs Department, rights holders gain access to enhanced border enforcement measures, empowering customs officials to identify and intercept pirated goods before they enter the market. While copyright protection in Myanmar arises automatically under the Copyright Law of 2019, a registration certificate for copyright or related rights is required to apply for customs recordation. Customs Recordation Registered copyright and related rights holders can apply directly or through authorized legal representatives for customs recordation to prevent cross-border trade in pirated works. Applications must use the prescribed form and include all supporting documentary evidence specified in the form. The Customs Department will notify applicants within 15 days of receiving their application. Each recordation remains valid for two years from the date of acceptance and may be renewed for successive two-year periods by submitting a renewal application at least 30 days before expiration. Rights holders whose works are recorded must notify the Customs Department within five days of any amendment or withdrawal of information at the Intellectual Property Department. Suspension Orders Registered copyright and related rights holders can request a suspension order to prevent release of pirated goods into free circulation, regardless of whether they
Read More
October 3, 2025
In Thailand, the rise in online intellectual property infringement has prompted authorities to strengthen enforcement efforts, including the use of website-blocking orders under Section 20(3) of the Computer Crime Act B.E. 2560 (2017) (CCA). This provision authorizes the Ministry of Digital Economy and Society (MDES), with court approval, to block or remove computer data that constitutes a criminal offence under IP law. Since its implementation, the procedure has undergone several developments, which is an encouraging sign of progress. Website-blocking procedure In practice, website-blocking orders under Section 20(3) of the CCA are primarily used for copyright and trademark infringement. While such orders are legally applicable to patent infringement, their use remains challenging due to the difficulty of proving infringement through administrative procedures. The website-blocking procedure begins when an IP owner identifies online infringing content. For copyright infringement, which is considered a compoundable offence, the IP owner is required to first file a police report with the specialized police unit known as the Economic Crime Suppression Division (ECD) prior to filing the website-blocking application with the Department of Intellectual Property (DIP). For trademark infringement cases, the application can be filed directly with the DIP without a prior police report. The DIP reviews the evidence and, if infringement is confirmed, forwards it to the MDES for further consideration. If the case is deemed valid, the MDES requests a court order to block the infringing website. Once granted, the MDES notifies the internet service providers (ISPs) to block access to the specified website. Website blocking procedure in Thailand Recent advancements in website-blocking actions Seamless collaboration through digital integration. Thailand has made significant progress in digitizing its website-blocking procedures to improve efficiency and transparency. At present, all website-blocking applications and supporting evidence must be submitted in electronic format. These systems have significantly reduced processing
Read More
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