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​ 

July 24, 2026
As food innovation continues to accelerate, manufacturers are increasingly introducing ingredients derived from new sources, produced using novel technologies, or lacking a significant history of human consumption. While these innovations create new opportunities for the food industry, they also raise important questions regarding consumer safety. For this reason, many jurisdictions, including Thailand, the European Union, Australia and New Zealand, Canada, and Singapore, require a premarket safety assessment for novel food ingredients before they can be placed on the market. The objective of this assessment is to ensure that each ingredient is safe for its intended use and level of consumption, does not present toxicological, allergenic, microbiological, or nutritional concerns, and will not mislead consumers. Scientific authorities typically evaluate the ingredient’s identity, manufacturing process, composition, specifications, anticipated dietary exposure, toxicological information, nutritional impact, and history of use before determining whether it can be marketed. Against this background, the Thai Food and Drug Administration (FDA) recently took an important step toward improving regulatory transparency by publishing, for the first time, a consolidated public list of substances that have successfully completed the Thai FDA’s safety assessment process, including substances determined to be novel foods and those determined not to fall within the novel food category. The list identifies the approved substances, the corresponding manufacturers or importers, approval dates, and the approved conditions of use. Although the publication does not change the existing legal framework governing novel food approvals, it provides businesses with greater visibility into the Thai FDA’s regulatory precedents and the types of substances that have previously been accepted through the safety assessment process. The full announcement is available on the Thai FDA’s website. As the list is now publicly available, it also provides useful insight into the types of substances that have successfully completed the Thai FDA’s safety assessment process.
Read More
July 24, 2026
Indonesia has updated its fee framework for intellectual property (IP)-related government services, with implications for IP owners, licensees, lenders, digital platforms, and businesses operating in the country. Government Regulation No. 30 of 2026 on Types and Tariffs of Non-Tax State Revenue Applicable to the Ministry of Law (GR 30/2026) was promulgated on July 2, 2026, and will take effect on August 1, 2026. Key Takeaways GR 30/2026, which replaces the relevant IP service fees under Government Regulation No. 45 of 2024, reorganizes the fee schedule into separate categories for copyright, industrial designs, patents, layout designs of integrated circuits, trade secrets, trademarks, geographical indications, IP enforcement, and other categories. The most commercially relevant changes include a new copyright recordation tariff exemption for songs and music, higher fees for several trademark and geographical indication services, new IP enforcement service fees, and a new fee type for registration of fiduciary security over IP rights objects. In addition, this is the first major update for trademark fees in approximately 10 years. GR 30/2026 is significant not only as a fee update but also as a further indication of Indonesia’s increasing recognition of IP as a financeable commercial asset. By expressly assigning fees to the registration of fiduciary security over IP rights objects, the regulation places IP-backed collateral filings within the Ministry of Law’s administrative service framework. While GR 30/2026 does not create a new secured-transactions regime, this development is relevant for lenders, borrowers, and IP owners structuring financing arrangements secured by trademarks, patents, copyrights, industrial designs, or other registrable IP rights in Indonesia. Copyright: New Fee Exemption for Songs and Music Recordation For copyright, GR 30/2026 creates a fee-exempt category for recordation of works or related-rights products for songs or music, while maintaining a separate category for other works and related-rights products. It
Read More
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