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​ 

June 15, 2026
The surge in AI development has led to a desperate demand for large, high-quality training data. However, real-world data can be expensive to collect, difficult to access, and often subject to strict privacy and regulatory constraints. Synthetic data, which consists of artificially generated records that replicate the statistical properties of real-world data without reproducing specific individuals’ information, provides an appealing solution by generating artificial datasets at scale without relying on identifiable personal information. It combines speed, cost efficiency, and regulatory compliance, making it a sensible alternative for organizations seeking to reduce risks while maintaining data utility. When properly anonymized, synthetic datasets may fall outside the scope of laws such as the EU’s General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR) or Thailand’s Personal Data Protection Act (PDPA), reducing compliance burdens while still supporting high-quality model training. However, relying on synthetic data without rigorous legal due diligence could be a strategic mistake. It replaces one set of known risks (scraping, direct privacy liability) with a new set of complex liabilities. The narrative that synthetic data is a “silver bullet” for privacy and IP compliance is dangerous and could be misleading. While synthetic data addresses data scarcity, it also introduces new legal uncertainties. Legal counsel should anticipate downstream risks arising from compromised data sources. Models trained on unlawfully obtained data may need to be decommissioned, even if their outputs appear lawful. What is synthetic data? Synthetic data refers to artificially generated information created using AI techniques such as deep learning and generative models. Instead of copying real records, it reproduces the statistical patterns and relationships found in the original dataset. Synthetic data generally falls into three categories: Fully synthetic data – Entirely new data points generated from learned patterns. The model studies the structure of the original data and produces records that resemble real-world
Read More
June 10, 2026
In March 2026, the Intellectual Property Office of Vietnam (IP Office) issued a decision refusing a trademark application after considering an opposition based primarily on copyright grounds. The outcome is noteworthy because the foreign brand owner had neither trademark registrations nor applications in Vietnam at the time the opposition was filed, and the IP Office has historically applied a stringent approach to oppositions relying on copyright. The Opposition Maurten is a well-known Swedish sports nutrition brand recognized globally for its innovative hydrogel technology, which is designed to help endurance athletes fuel more effectively without gastrointestinal discomfort. The brand’s distinctive logo is characterized by clean lines and a bold black-and-white color scheme, and has long been associated with the company’s performance products. The brand’s logo is displayed above. An identical mark was filed for registration by a Vietnamese trademark squatter. In 2023, a Vietnamese individual filed an application for registration of an identical mark (Application No. 4-2023-38668), a practice commonly observed in Vietnam as trademark squatting. The brand owner engaged Tilleke & Gibbins to assist with strategy and filing an opposition to the mark. At the time, Maurten had no trademark rights or meaningful use in Vietnam, and global marketing data showed only modest figures without any local presence. Thus, to convince the IP Office to refuse the squatter’s application, instead of relying on trademark rights or use evidence, the opposition strategy centered on the copyright protection of the logo itself, as copyright arises automatically in Vietnam upon creation of the work and does not require registration. (It is worth noting, however, that the IP Office has traditionally been cautious in accepting copyright as a basis for refusing trademark applications.) On September 24, 2024, an opposition was filed on three main grounds: confusing similarity, copyright infringement of the artistic work,
Read More
June 10, 2026
For multinational franchisors operating in Thailand, a key risk after franchise termination is that former outlets may continue operating in ways that could easily mislead consumers into believing they remain within the authorized network. To justify such operations, former franchisees often argue that the termination was invalid or ineffective. As a result, these cases are often treated as contractual disputes, making it difficult for franchisors to obtain injunctive relief before a final judgment confirms that the termination was lawful. Franchisors face significant commercial and reputational harm during lengthy proceedings, including consumer confusion, disruption to franchise restructuring, and damage to brand reputation and customer trust. In an encouraging development, the Thai court in a 2025 case responded to the problem of unauthorized post-termination franchise operations by granting interim relief, recognizing broader brand and consumer harm, and awarding substantial damages, highlighting a successful litigation strategy of framing the dispute not merely as a contractual termination issue but as trademark infringement causing ongoing commercial injury. The Subway Case From December 2024 to mid-2025, an unauthorized “Subway®” franchise operation in Thailand attracted substantial public and media attention. Reports and online discussions about unauthorized Subway® stores circulated widely after complaints arose about food quality and customer experience at certain outlets that were allegedly operating after their franchise rights had expired. Because these stores continued to use Subway® trademarks, trade dress, and overall commercial appearance, many consumers were unable to distinguish them from authorized operations, resulting in reputational risks and customer confusion that affected the franchisor’s brand and franchise system in Thailand. Subway treated this matter with the utmost seriousness and moved promptly to protect its brand, franchise system, and customers. It filed a civil action with the IP&IT Court seeking a permanent injunction and damages. During the proceedings, the court granted a preliminary injunction
Read More
May 22, 2026
Thailand recently concluded the latest round of high-level trade discussions with its US trade counterparts. In addition to addressing concerns over claimed human rights abuses, forced labor, and the current trade imbalance with the US, one critical area of focus was US allegations of transshipment in Thailand’s import-export sector. Transshipment is the practice of routing goods through a third country to circumvent duties or tariffs on goods exported to the receiving country. Specifically, the US alleges that many Thai exporters declare a Thai origin for goods to qualify for preferential duties or exemptions without meeting the legal standards for establishing Thai product origin—an act that it claims masks the goods’ true origin. This is a particular matter of concern for US authorities, since transshipment is perceived to be a means by which Thai origin is claimed for many Chinese goods exported abroad. This perception affects a wide range of otherwise legitimate Thai-origin goods. The Thai trade delegation, led by Deputy Prime Minister and Commerce Minister Suphajee Suthumpun, met with counterparts from the Office of the United States Trade Representative (USTR) on May 3–6. A subsequent team of Thai trade representatives, led by the Thai Ministry of Commerce vice minister, met with the USTR on May 13–14. These discussions directly impact the trade enforcement environment in Thailand, potentially affecting numerous business operators involved in the manufacture, import, or export of goods and components. Thailand’s position is that it strictly adheres to and enforces the legal standards for determining qualifying origin and that allegations of transshipment are largely unjustified. Nonetheless, it has agreed to increase its focus on trade compliance and enforcement in Thailand in return for commitments on reciprocal trade benefits with the US, including consideration of tariff exemptions on certain critical Thai imports into the US. Notable Outcomes There
Read More