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​ 

August 21, 2025
Although the “passing off” principle has sometimes faced criticism for potentially broadening trademark protection—particularly in cases involving unregistered or unconventional marks like shapes, scents, or sounds—it serves an essential purpose. It safeguards the rights of business owners and shields consumers from deception, ensuring fair competition and reflecting the realities of modern commerce. What is passing off, and why is registrability not required? The passing-off principle is a legal concept rooted in English law, aimed at preventing a person from falsely representing or using a mark similar to another’s in a way that causes consumers to mistakenly believe the goods or services come from the same source. Under Thai law, the passing-off principle is provided under Section 46 of the Thai Trademark Act, which states: No person shall be entitled to bring legal proceedings to prevent or to recover damages for the infringement of an unregistered trademark. The provisions of this Section shall not affect the right of the owner of an unregistered trademark to bring legal proceedings against any person for passing off goods as those of the owner of the trademark. The passing-off principle can be interpreted as a practical legal concept. It does not require proof that the mark is registrable or meets the registrability criteria under trademark law. It is sufficient to show that the mark has established goodwill and that the other party’s use of a similar mark is likely to confuse consumers, making it a straightforward and effective tool for protecting brand assets. Requiring a claimant to prove that an unregistered mark could have been registered would undermine the very function of passing off. The doctrine was conceived precisely to fill the gaps left by the registration system. Imposing registrability criteria would nullify its function and leave many commercially valuable identifiers unprotected. If the
Read More
August 19, 2025
On August 6, 2025, Myanmar’s National Defence and Security Council (NDSC) issued Order No. 20/2025, announcing a change in the composition of the country’s Foreign Exchange Supervisory Committee (FESC). The prime minister has been appointed committee chair of the FESC, and five other individuals were appointed to the committee. The order took immediate effect. Originally established in April 2022, the FESC is responsible for approving foreign currency conversion, granting exemptions to foreign exchange restrictions, and permitting overseas transfers of foreign currency. The FESC supervises the flow of foreign currencies for domestic and foreign investment, manufacturing, exports and imports, and service businesses (including education- and health-related initiatives). The FESC is specifically responsible for considering and approving the use of foreign currency for the following: Importing machinery, vehicles, equipment, and raw materials essential for foreign investment and manufacturing projects; Importing fuel, medicine, cooking oil, fertilizer, insecticide, and construction materials not readily available on the domestic market; Covering Myanmar citizens’ needs abroad, such as medical treatment, education, or religious activities; Facilitating imports of general goods, loan repayments, interest payments to foreign lenders, service payments, and profit repatriation from investments; and Importing luxury products, including brand-name goods, jewelry, sports cars, and watches. The FESC is empowered to carry out further duties related to foreign exchange management as assigned by the NDSC Importers, exporters, investors, and business owners are encouraged to consult the most current FESC guidelines and approval lists before conducting transactions in Myanmar. For more details on these FESC composition developments, or on any aspect of financial regulations in Myanmar, please contact Tilleke & Gibbins at [email protected].
Read More
August 15, 2025
Indonesia’s Directorate General of Intellectual Property (DGIP) has introduced a temporary feature in its online filing system to accommodate the submission of annual patent working statements. The requirement to submit these annual working statements was introduced under the amended Patent Law enacted on October 28, 2024, but the implementing regulation has still not been issued. Annual Working Statements Article 20A of the amended Patent Law requires all patentees to submit an annual statement regarding the implementation of their patents in Indonesia. This obligation applies to all active patents, regardless of when they were granted. The annual working statement declares the status of implementation of the patented invention within Indonesia. Acceptable forms of implementation include: Manufacturing the patented product (whether commercialized or not) Utilizing the patented process (whether commercialized or not) Importation Licensing If the patent has not yet been implemented in Indonesia, the DGIP provides an option to indicate: “The mentioned registered patent has not been implemented in Indonesia.” The statement must be made using the official template provided by the DGIP through the online filing system. Submission The working statement must be submitted annually no later than December 31 of each calendar year. No supporting documents are needed for the submission apart from the signed form itself. A color scanned copy will suffice; the original document is not required. There is currently no official fee for submitting the working statement. While the submission process may eventually align with annuity fee payments, the current process remains separate due to the pending implementing regulation. The submission process may be subject to change upon issuance of the implementing regulation, which is under discussion and expected in the coming months. In the interim, the DGIP accepts submissions of overdue working statements, allowing patentees to fulfill their obligations retroactively. This flexibility is expected
Read More
July 31, 2025
The Madrid System for international trademark registration provides the opportunity for a simplified and cost-effective way to register trademarks in multiple countries through a single application. Indonesia joined the Madrid System in 2018, and in 2024 alone, it received over 8,600 applications through this system. Despite the system’s effectiveness, it is important for trademark owners to be aware of the potential risks of refusal that can arise during the process of registration. Trademark applicants must pay close attention to these critical points when designating Indonesia. Appointing a Local Representative to Respond An applicant or representative of an international registration (IR) application that has been provisionally refused must appoint a local Indonesian representative in order to submit a response to the provisional refusal. This appointment is solely for the purpose of responding to the refusal in Indonesia; it is not necessary if the IR has not received any rejection. Furthermore, the local representative should not be registered with WIPO, as doing so would affect representation across all designated countries. Timing When it comes to calculating the deadline for responding to a provisional refusal, there is a discrepancy between the methods used by the DGIP and WIPO. Under the Indonesian Trademark Law, trademark owners can file a response within 30 working days, excluding weekends and national holidays. However, the WIPO cover letter accompanying the DGIP’s provisional refusal notice specifies both the start date and the deadline for responding to the notification, which is calculated as 30 calendar days, including weekends and national holidays. Therefore, a response to the provisional refusal of IR should be submitted in accordance with the WIPO cover letter to prevent any formality issue. Grounds for Refusal After an IR application is published in Indonesia’s Trademark Gazette, it undergoes substantive examination by the Directorate General of Intellectual Property (DGIP) examiners. The
Read More