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

June 3, 2016

Trademark Act Amendments Usher in Thailand’s Accession to the Madrid Protocol

Subscribe to Updates
Informed Counsel

Amendments to Thailand’s Trademark Act were published in the Royal Gazette on April 29, 2016. The amendments will become effective on July 28, 90 days after the publication date. Among the amendments is a new chapter on trademark registration which introduces a number of changes that set the stage for Thailand to accede to the Madrid Protocol in 2016.

The Department of Intellectual Property is currently preparing a draft Ministerial Regulation that will allow Thailand to become a member of the Madrid Protocol, and it is preparing a new team of Trademark Registrars with responsibilities to: (1) take charge of filing International Applications at WIPO; and (2) accept and handle examinations of international registrations designating Thailand from WIPO.

The significant amendments to Thailand’s Trademark Act are discussed below.

Sound marks. The definition of “mark” under Section 4 will include “sounds.” Sound marks will be registrable. (The protection of smell marks was considered in the proposed amendments but was not included due to conflicting opinions over their inclusion.)

Distinctive marks. The criteria that constitute distinctiveness for different types of marks are clearly stated in Section 7(2), which includes shapes or three-dimensional objects that are not the natural shapes of the applied goods, are not functionally necessary, and do not add value to the goods. In addition, sound marks must not be descriptive of the applied goods.

Marks that are considered as not sufficiently distinctive may be registrable if they are proved to be substantially sold, distributed, or advertised in Thailand.

Multiple-class applications. Multiple-class applications will be allowed.

Oppositions and responses to official actions. The allowed period for responses to official actions and appeal petitions against orders from Registrars, the publication period for oppositions, and the period to file counterstatements to oppositions will be reduced from 90 days to 60 days.

The allowed period for registration fee payment, however, will increase from 30 days to 60 days. Responses to official actions regarding the assignment of marks must be completed within 60 days—otherwise, the application for assignment will be deemed abandoned.

Partial assignment. Partial assignment for some or all registered goods or services will be allowed.

Abolishment of requirement to register associated marks. The requirement to register associated marks will be abolished. All registrations of associated marks under the previous Trademark Act will be cancelled as if they were not registered as associated marks.

License agreements. A license agreement will not be terminated as a result of the transfer or inheritance of the right of the mark for which the license agreement is made unless there is a provision in the agreement to the contrary.

Expiry grace period. After the expiry date, there is a grace period of six months to renew the registration of a mark. A surcharge of 20 percent of the government renewal fee must be paid by the end of the grace period.

Government fees. The government fees for certain transactions have been revised. Government fees will not be calculated for every item of goods in filing a new application.

The new government fees for filing a new application, registration, and renewal are as follows:
 

New application: For goods/services of up to five items
For more than five items of goods/services
 		 THB 1,000 (per item)
THB 9,000
 
Registration: For goods/services of up to five items
For more than five items of goods/services
 		 THB 600 (per item)
THB 5,400
 
Renewal: For goods/services of up to five items
For more than five items of goods/services
 		 THB 2,000 (per item)
THB 18,000
 

Refilling. The offense of refilling has been added to Section 109/1 of the amended Trademark Act. It stipulates that a person who reuses or refills packaging or containers bearing another’s registered trademarks to mislead the public into believing that the goods are of the trademark owner will be liable for imprisonment of up to four years and/or a fine of up to THB 400,000.

The amended Trademark Act introduces a new trademark filing system to prepare Thailand for its accession to the Madrid Protocol. The system allows trademark owners to file and protect their marks in multiple countries that belong to the Madrid Protocol by filing a single application. Not only does this save applicants time and costs, but it also harmonizes Thailand’s trademark protection procedures and system with international practices.

Download Full Article
Related Professionals

Practices

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 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
September 14, 2026
On August 23, 2026, Vietnam’s National Assembly passed Law No. 11/2026/QH16, amending the country’s Customs Law with effect from March 1, 2027. The amendments represent a substantial reform of Vietnam’s customs-based intellectual property enforcement regime. The reforms come amid considerable external pressure. In its 2026 Special 301 review, the US Trade Representative (USTR) designated Vietnam a “priority foreign country,” citing widespread counterfeiting, weak border enforcement, limited ex officio customs powers, and the absence of controls over goods in transit. Vietnam’s legislative response signals a commitment to bringing its border enforcement practices into line with international expectations. For IP rights holders operating in or through Vietnam, the amended law introduces several tools that substantially strengthen enforcement options at the border. Closing the Transit Gap One of the most consequential amendments is the extension of IP-related customs enforcement to goods in transit. Previously, Vietnam’s customs regime applied IP controls only to goods being imported or exported, a gap the USTR had specifically identified as enabling infringing goods to pass through Vietnamese ports with impunity. Vietnam’s geographic position as a logistics hub for Southeast Asia means that substantial volumes of goods transit its ports and free-trade zones. Extending enforcement to cover these shipments brings Vietnam closer to the standard set by the EU’s customs enforcement regulation and addresses a longstanding concern of multinational brand owners whose goods are frequently counterfeited in the region. Strengthened Suspension and Ex Officio Powers The amended law introduces a dual-track suspension mechanism (Article 73(2)). Customs authorities will suspend clearance upon request by an IP rights holder (or authorized representative) who provides evidence of IP ownership, evidence of infringement, and a financial guarantee. Customs can now proactively suspend clearance on an ex officio basis if, during inspection and monitoring, they discover “clear grounds” to suspect that imported, exported,
Read More