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

January 29, 2025

The EU-Thailand FTA Intellectual Property Gap

Subscribe to Updates

The fourth round of negotiations of the EU-Thailand Free Trade Agreement (FTA) wrapped up in Bangkok in November 2024. Now that the latest summary report is out, it is worth highlighting some of the intellectual property (IP)-related changes we might see once the chapter is complete.

Copyright

If Thailand were to agree to follow the EU proposal, we would see the term of protection for copyright extended. Currently under Thai law, protection is the life of the author plus fifty years. This is twenty years less than the EU proposal. It seems that copyright is one area the two sides have yet to agree on, and it is no wonder as agreeing to follow Thai law would deprive authors from the EU of an additional twenty years of protection post-death. On the other hand, Thailand agreeing to the EU proposal would likely result in legislative change in the country to align domestic law with the FTA.

We may also see more robust and streamlined collective management organizations (CMOs) in Thailand. The current proposal calls for each party to promote cooperation between their CMOs, which would extend to transparency over their running, including revenue and representation agreements. Thailand does currently have CMOs within the territory, and the Department of Intellectual Property (DIP) has a voluntary CMO code. However, it is unclear whether existing practice will be sufficient for EU rightsholders. CMOs have been an area that is difficult to regulate as there has been a balancing act between tightening the examination of reporting and not wanting to limit the freedom of rightsholders and how they commercialize their IP.

Trademarks

There is a fair amount of overlap between the Trademark Act in Thailand and the EU proposals. However, it is unclear to what degree the existing laws would satisfy the requests coming out of Brussels. An example can be seen in the proposal that each side have a publicly available electronic database of both trademark applications and registrations. The European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO) is very user-friendly and contains all relevant information. Similarly, in Thailand, the DIP website contains applications and registrations, although it is not updated with the same speed as the EUIPO, meaning rightsholders sometimes need to visit the DIP in person to check the register. This can often be cumbersome and challenging for rightsholders, so a more user-friendly DIP website that allowed online verification would be welcomed by many.

Patents

In Thailand, design patents are protected for 10 years; however, the EU has proposed that the minimum term (including renewals) of registered designs be no less than twenty-five years from the date of the application. This is likely to be an area of discussion between both sides for the same reasons as flagged above in relation to copyright protection.

The EU has proposed that when a patented product is subject to any marketing authorization procedures, the term of protection should be extended to reflect the time between the application and the marketing authorization, for a patent-term extension of up to a maximum of five years.

Trade Secrets

Thailand’s practices for handling trade secrets are unlikely to see much change, as the current law in Thailand aligns well with the EU proposals.

Final Thoughts

As the EU-proposed chapter is unlikely to be accepted without changes, negotiators will need to reach a middle ground. The final compromise may bring changes such as increased protection terms and guidelines for CMOs and trademark searches. However, some rightsholders may need to accept that they won’t be afforded exactly the same terms as within the EU. Regardless, it would probably see them in a more favorable position than they are currently in. The latest summary report makes it clear that there is still much to agree on, with the parties now exploring ways to bridge the gap between EU and Thailand IP systems. With some of these negotiations being text-based, there is still the question of how long this process will eventually take, and this is a question that is even being asked by the prime minister of Thailand. The Ministry of Commerce has been ordered by the government to accelerate these negotiations with the aim of seeing a finalized FTA by the end of 2025.  This isn’t the only FTA that Thailand is aiming to sign this year, so only time will tell whether the next negotiation round in Brussels will be the final one.

Related Professionals

Practices

Customs and International Trade

Intellectual Property

Location

RELATED INSIGHTS​ 

September 24, 2026
Vietnam is implementing and developing a broad package of regulatory reforms that could reshape how IP, data, digital platforms, and product authenticity are regulated and enforced. Several of the key measures have been led by the Ministry of Public Security in its legislative and administrative capacity, as part of a broader government effort. The core reform package consists of four key legal instruments: proposed amendments to the Criminal Code, a proposed new Data Security Law, a draft Decree on Product Identification, Authentication and Traceability, and the newly enacted Decree No. 330/2026/ND-CP. These instruments include rules on criminal enforcement, data security, electronic identification, product identification and traceability, administrative violations, and cybersecurity sanctions. Combined, these measures will affect copyright enforcement, industrial property rights, trade secrets, AI training data, product provenance, online takedowns, valuation of counterfeit goods and electronic evidence. It is worth noting that, in addition to strengthening criminal penalties for IP crimes, Vietnam’s emerging regulatory framework increasingly treats infringement, data misuse, product authentication, and platform-enabled violations as interconnected regulatory and enforcement challenges. For rights holders and foreign investors, this could mean stronger tools against counterfeiting and online infringement, but also more compliance obligations around data, traceability, AI, platform controls and government-facing reporting. Expansion of Criminal IP Enforcement Proposed amendments to Article 225 of the Criminal Code would expand criminal copyright exposure beyond reproduction and distribution to cover large-scale commercial public performance and online communication of works, phonograms and video recordings. This is important because piracy is increasingly about streaming, unauthorized communication, and platform access models rather than physical copying. Aggravated copyright infringement could be subject to up to 10 years in prison for individuals and fines of up to VND 6 billion (about USD 228,300) for commercial legal entities. The amended Article 226 would expand criminal industrial property liability beyond
Read More
September 22, 2026
Tilleke & Gibbins has contributed the Thailand chapter to Shipping Law 2026 from the International Comparative Legal Guides (ICLG) series published by Global Legal Group. This comprehensive guide provides detailed legal analysis of shipping laws, regulatory frameworks, and maritime dispute resolution across key maritime jurisdictions worldwide. Each chapter follows a structured Q&A format, organized into critical sections covering key aspects of maritime law and practice, including: Marine casualties, collision liability, pollution regimes, salvage, and general average Marine cargo claims, statutory carrier obligations, liability limits, and misdeclaration of cargo Maritime passenger claims, personal injury liabilities, and consumer case procedures Vessel arrest, counter-security, provisional attachment, and maritime liens Evidence preservation, perpetuation procedures, and electronic document disclosure Court jurisdiction, specialized IP&IT litigation, arbitration, and alternative dispute resolution (ADR) Enforcement of foreign court judgments and arbitral awards under the New York Convention 1958 Offshore wind energy initiatives, regulatory permits, and cabotage restrictions Sector developments, including the Landbridge project and decarbonization trends The Thailand chapter, authored by Noppramart Thammateeradaycho and Panchaya Rattanaumnuaishai, examines these topics in detail, highlighting key statutory regimes such as the Carriage of Goods by Sea Act (COGSA), the Arrest of Ships Act, and the jurisdiction of the Central Intellectual Property and International Trade (IP&IT) Court. The complete Thailand chapter is available as a PDF below. The Thailand chapter—and the full Shipping Law 2026 guide—are also freely available on the ICLG website.
Read More
September 21, 2026
Thailand’s first-to-file trademark system has a serious vulnerability: it lacks both an explicit mechanism for refusing bad-faith registrations and any means of invalidating them in court after the five-year limitation period has expired. While brand owners worldwide confront trademark squatting, Thailand’s statutory silence stands out, particularly in light of AIPPI’s 2017 Resolution Q249, which recommended that every jurisdiction provide clear tools to address bad faith at all stages of the trademark lifecycle. Nearly a decade later, Thailand has yet to act. This article proposes a concrete reform blueprint, drawing on the legislative models of China, the United Kingdom, and the European Union. The Statutory Gap Under the Thai Trademark Act B.E. 2534, no provision expressly authorizes examiners to reject an application on grounds of bad faith. Section 8(10) addresses well-known marks but offers no relief where the targeted mark lacks well-known status. Practitioners have resorted to Section 8(9)—which bars marks “contrary to public order, morality, or public policy”—as a workaround. However, this provision was designed to address the characteristics of the mark itself, not the applicant’s intent. Thai Supreme Court decisions have split on whether it can reach bad-faith conduct, creating persistent legal uncertainty. The gap extends beyond examination. Civil actions to cancel a bad-faith registration must be brought within five years—a deadline that frequently expires before foreign brand owners discover the squatted mark. Cancellation through the Board of Trademarks remains available but is slow, costly, and subject to court appeal, leaving bad-faith registrations in force during protracted proceedings. The system effectively rewards squatters and penalizes legitimate owners. Lessons from International Best Practices Several major jurisdictions have already closed this gap. China’s 2019 amendment to Article 4 of the Trademark Law introduced an absolute ground for refusal: “bad faith trademark applications without intent to use shall be rejected.” Bad
Read More
September 14, 2026
Myanmar’s first-to-file trademark registration regime under the Trademark Law 2019—which became fully operational in April 2023—provides mark owners with enhanced legal protection compared with the country’s former system. Correspondingly, the current system imposes more rigorous statutory requirements for obtaining, maintaining, and enforcing rights in marks. In this first-to-file trademark registration system, however, evidence of use remains particularly significant, as it may establish acquired distinctiveness, support a claim that a mark is well-known, and strengthen the owner’s position in both registration and enforcement proceedings. Accordingly, it can be said that this framework is underpinned by three key concepts: distinctiveness, well-known status, and, importantly, use of the trademark. Trademark Distinctiveness Under the Trademark Law, signs that lack distinctiveness are generally ineligible for mark protection. These signs include generic terms, basic shapes, unstylized single letters or numerals, and signs that merely describe the kind, quality, quantity, intended purpose, value, geographical origin, production time, or other characteristics of the relevant goods or services. However, a mark that would otherwise be refused on distinctiveness or descriptiveness grounds may be registrable if it has acquired distinctiveness through its use prior to the filing date. To show this, the applicant must demonstrate that the mark became distinctive to relevant consumers through continuous, exclusive, and good-faith use in trade within Myanmar. The burden of proving acquired distinctiveness rests with the mark owner. Accordingly, sufficient evidence demonstrating both use of the mark and the level of consumer recognition attained should be prepared in advance. Well-Known Mark Criteria Myanmar’s Trademark Rules, which govern the substantive examination of mark registration applications, establish criteria for determining well-known marks, aligned with international standards. Where an applicant claims well-known status—whether to overcome a refusal on relative grounds or to oppose a third party’s registration—the registrar will assess the claim based on the following
Read More