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​ 

August 30, 2024
As in many other countries, registered trademarks in Indonesia that are not used for a given period of time can be canceled. A recent decision (Decision No. 144/PUU-XXI/2023) from the country’s Constitutional Court has extended the non-use cancellation period from three years to five years, applicable from July 30, 2024. This ruling could have a major impact on trademark holders in the country. Background of the Case Article 74 of Indonesia’s Trademark Law of 2016 specifies that trademarks can be canceled if they go unused in the trade of goods or services for three consecutive years from the date of registration or last use. This provision is aligned with the Paris Convention and the TRIPs Agreement. On October 27, 2023, an Indonesian individual named Ricky Thio asked the Constitutional Court to examine the constitutionality of Article 74, arguing that it opened a pathway for third parties to eliminate trademarks owned by small and medium-sized enterprises (SMEs), and did not provide certainty to his registered trademark in terms of the period of protection. Additionally, he argued that the period of three consecutive years was burdensome for SMEs, and asked the court to void Article 74 and add force majeure circumstances—such as Covid-19—as an exemption to non-use cancellation. Mr. Thio submitted this request while he was defending his trademark registration from a non-use cancellation request filed by Zhejiang Dahua Technology Co., Ltd. In his defense to that cancellation request, Mr. Thio explained that the non-use of the trademark was due to the Covid-19 pandemic. The cancellation case followed a different judicial pathway, and was under appeal before the Supreme Court at the time Mr. Thio filed his request for judicial review with the Constitutional Court. Mr. Thio’s case also attracted the submission of an amicus brief—a relatively new trend in Indonesia—from
Read More
August 30, 2024
In 2023, Vietnam’s Intellectual Property Rights Infringement Prevention Cooperation Program reported that 776 cases of IPR infringement were resolved nationwide. Of these, 546 were addressed through administrative measures, while criminal proceedings were initiated in just five cases. These statistics clearly show that administrative measures overwhelmingly dominate the response to counterfeit goods, with criminal actions being relatively rare. This raises an intriguing question: Why do IPR holders prefer administrative routes over criminal measures in Vietnam? And what challenges and obstacles make criminal enforcement less commonly pursued in these cases? Overlapping legal provisions Under Vietnam’s Penal Code, two key offenses address counterfeit goods: Manufacturing and trading in counterfeit goods under Article 192. Manufacturing and trading in industrial property rights-infringing goods under Article 226. Both provisions regulate counterfeit goods, yet they suffer from a lack of clear definitions and guidelines for application. Article 192 does not explicitly define “counterfeit goods”. Instead, authorities refer to Article 3.7 of Decree No. 98/2020/ND-CP, as amended, which outlines several categories of counterfeit goods, including: (i) utility counterfeits (goods not meeting normal expectations of usage or function), (ii) substandard goods, (iii) counterfeit goods based on misrepresentation, and (iv) counterfeit stamps, labels, and packaging. Meanwhile, Article 226 specifically deals with counterfeit goods that infringe trademark rights. These “trademark-counterfeit goods” are defined under Article 213.2 of the IP Law as goods or packaging bearing trademarks or signs that are identical or confusingly similar to protected trademarks for the same goods, used without the trademark owner’s permission. In this regard, “counterfeit goods” and “trademark-counterfeit goods” are treated as distinct, non-overlapping concepts, each corresponding to a separate offense. However, in practice, there is often a gray area where the two overlap. Many cases involve infringing goods that meet the criteria for both categories, allowing authorities to apply both regulations simultaneously. For
Read More
August 30, 2024
With the emergence of online marketplaces and e-commerce platforms, consumers have transformed their ways of engaging in transactions, gaining unprecedented convenience and access to a vast array of products. These platforms allow small businesses and individual entrepreneurs to reach a wider audience in an increasingly competitive market. Challenges in Tracing Online Infringers The growth of these online marketplaces and e-commerce platforms has also given rise to challenges, particularly in locating the actual identity of online infringers and combating intellectual property infringement activities. Online infringers often take advantage of anonymity to offer counterfeit products for sale on their platforms. Not only do these online infringing activities violate the rights of IP owners, but they also involve the sale of counterfeit products that are often manufactured with inferior quality and may pose significant risks to consumers’ health and safety. In today’s modern world, tracing the actual identity of online infringers proves challenging, as infringers adopt numerous methods to conceal their identity. The most frequently used method is using a fake name and address when dispatching parcels to consumers, making it difficult to verify the seller’s identity and the location of the sender on the parcel package. Some infringers exploit cash-on-delivery logistics services to prevent the disclosure of their identity, such as bank account numbers and bank account owner names, which would typically be required for direct payments. Instead, the shipping company collects the payment on their behalf, allowing the infringers to remain anonymous and making it more difficult to find their actual identity. Thailand’s New Regulations on Cash-on-Delivery Logistics Services Recently, the Committee on Contracts of Thailand’s Consumer Protection Board announced the Notification regarding Stipulation of Cash-on-Delivery Logistics Services as a Controlled-Receipt Business B.E. 2567 (2024) under the Consumer Protection Act B.E. 2522 (1979) in the Thai Royal Gazette dated July
Read More
August 7, 2024
A recent case at the Myanmar Competition Commission has set a significant precedent in the country’s approach to unfair competition practices. The case, involving a Thai manufacturer of cement grout and tile adhesive products and a local Myanmar producer, highlighted the Commission’s willingness to address issues of deceptive marketing and unfair competition. Background The case centered around a Thai manufacturer who has been distributing their cement grout and tile adhesive products in Myanmar for many years through local distribution agents. The company had established a well-known brand and a strong reputation for quality in the Myanmar market. In recent years, the Thai company discovered that a local individual in Myanmar was manufacturing and selling similar products with packaging nearly identical to their own. The local producer was using the same mark device, color, and packaging design themes, and the products contained deceptive information. Legal Proceedings After an initial cease-and-desist letter failed to resolve the issue, a complaint was submitted to the Myanmar Competition Commission. The case was notable because the Commission typically does not address issues of copying designs, marks, colors, or packaging themes. However, the complaint emphasized that the local individual was misleading customers and competing unfairly by using deceptive information and copying distinctive designs and themes. Lawyers from Tilleke & Gibbins, representing the Thai manufacturer, provided extensive documentation proving their client’s long-standing presence in the Myanmar market and the local individual’s deceptive practices. The Commission’s Investigation Committee conducted a thorough investigation, including market surveys and hearings involving both parties. Commission’s Decision After nearly a year of deliberation, on July 4, 2024, the Decision-Making Committee of the Myanmar Competition Commission ruled in favor of the Thai manufacturer. The decision required the local individual to: Immediately cease the production and distribution of cement grout and tile adhesive products bearing
Read More