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

December 18, 2024

The EU-Thailand Free Trade Agreement

Subscribe to Updates

The EU-Thailand Free Trade Agreement is drawing a lot of interest as the fourth round recently concluded in Bangkok. Despite negotiations starting in 2013, there was a ten-year pause before we saw the first round of negotiations end in September 2023. The initial plan was for four rounds of negotiations, with the free trade agreement (FTA) finalized in 2025. However, following the fourth round it is clear that the negotiations are still ongoing. Now, the question is: how much closer are the EU and Thailand to concluding their FTA?

The EU initially submitted 13 chapter proposals for the FTA, followed by a further 12, and these became the springboard for the negotiations. Given the complexity of agreeing on an accord of this size, there will probably be additional proposals submitted in 2025. These chapters have seen sector-specific negotiation groups formed, and although it has been difficult to truly gauge the status, steady progress has been made in each.

Arguably one of the biggest points of discussion pertains to the customs process for imports and exports. Both sides aim to align their practices in relation to rules of origin and custom rates, with preferential tariff treatments offered to goods originating from Thailand and the EU, as well as talks of eliminating or reducing relevant taxes. The desire for a faster customs clearance can be seen in EU proposals for clearance of goods on arrival. Although there has been progress in agreeing to a more simplified customs process, more work needs to be done before we hear news of the agreed-upon fees and charges, or confirmation of what goods would be allowed temporary admission.

When we consider customs clearance, it is important to also examine what this FTA could mean for rightsholders. One piece of good news is that it appears all three rounds of negotiations surrounding the intellectual property (IP) chapter have been based on the proposal submitted by the EU. While there are no guarantees that the chapter will be identical to the proposal that was submitted, it is likely that the final chapter will at least be formed from the bones of the proposal. For example, this is good news for businesses that have geographical indications on their products, as these (assuming the proposal is accepted) would be protected as long as the protections and marks remain alive in the home jurisdiction.

IP rights aren’t the only thing potentially subject to favorable treatment under the FTA. The same extends to the services and investment chapter. The proposal put forward by the EU is for national treatment for services and service suppliers—something that would be highly welcomed by those in the relevant industry, although not by those offering services such as audiovisual assistance, as that will probably fall outside the scope of the chapter.

With many in-depth discussions completed and many more to go, we are left to wonder when the final agreement will be settled. However, we know that such a large FTA can’t be finalized overnight. As such, we eagerly await the summary of the round-four negotiations and look ahead to what we can expect following round five. Based on what we have already seen, we hope to hear the good news that chapters on IP, transparency and good regulatory practices, and final provisions and exceptions have been agreed upon, as these appear to be the closest to settlement. However, we will wait until the EU publishes their latest summary report before making any promises.

Related Professionals

Practices

Customs and International Trade

Intellectual Property

Location

RELATED INSIGHTS​ 

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
July 13, 2026
When Decree No. 186/2026/ND-CP (Decree 186) takes effect on July 15, 2026, it will introduce the most significant reform of Vietnam’s administrative IP enforcement framework since Decree 99/2013/ND-CP was issued in 2013. These changes are expected to make administrative enforcement faster, more accessible, and better suited to the realities of modern IP disputes. Below are the principal reforms and their practical implications for rights holders and enforcement practitioners. The End of Notarization and Consular Legalization Among the most welcome procedural changes is the abolition of the notarization and consular legalization requirement for powers of attorney (POA) submitted in administrative enforcement proceedings. Under the previous regime, foreign rights holders were generally required to execute a POA, then have it notarized and consular legalized (if seeking customs recordal). In practice, this process frequently delayed enforcement by four to eight weeks, often long enough for infringing goods to disappear before authorities could intervene. Decree 186 removes this bottleneck, now requiring only an original or certified copy of the POA. If the document is in a foreign language, a Vietnamese translation is sufficient, provided it is certified by a competent authority or confirmed by the authorized Vietnamese IP representative. Consular legalization and notarization are no longer required. For rights holders, the practical impact is substantial. Administrative enforcement files that previously took weeks to prepare can now be completed in a matter of days, allowing much faster responses in time-sensitive matters such as warehouse raids, border interventions, and trade-fair enforcement. The decree also introduces a useful administrative simplification. Where an original POA has already been submitted to the same enforcement authority and remains valid, applicants may rely on a copy of that earlier submission by identifying the previous case file. This eliminates unnecessary duplication for rights holders pursuing multiple enforcement actions before the same
Read More
July 9, 2026
Recycling, upcycling, and refill-packaging models are now widely promoted as ways to reduce waste, lower carbon emissions, and respond to consumer demand for sustainable products. However, complications arise when these environmentally driven trends intersect with intellectual property law—particularly where reused or altered packaging continues to display third parties’ registered trademarks. Adding to this complexity, Thailand’s draft Sustainable Packaging Management Act aims to introduce new environmental compliance obligations that businesses must navigate alongside existing trademark concerns. Recycling and upcycling packaging may infringe trademark rights, especially in cases not protected by the first-sale doctrine—the principle that a trademark owner’s rights over a particular mark-bearing product end once the owner first sells it. Furthermore, even refill packaging carries legal risk due to specific statutory prohibitions under Thai law. Compounding these challenges, the draft Sustainable Packaging Management Act will impose extended producer responsibility (EPR) obligations on manufacturers and brand owners, requiring them to manage packaging throughout its lifecycle. These overlapping legal frameworks could deter manufacturers from pursuing ESG-aligned business models unless businesses understand how to navigate both trademark and environmental requirements. Under Thai law, this issue remains uncertain because the Trademark Act does not expressly codify the first sale doctrine, also known as the exhaustion of trademark rights. Generally, this doctrine provides that once a trademark owner has lawfully sold goods bearing its trademark, the owner’s right to control further resale of those particular goods is exhausted. The rationale is that the owner has already received commercial benefit from the first authorized sale; therefore, the purchaser should be free to resell or otherwise dispose of the goods. Although the doctrine is not expressly codified in the Trademark Act, Thai courts have recognized it in relation to genuine goods and parallel imports, as seen in a Supreme Court Judgment No. 2817/2543 in which the
Read More