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​ 

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