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 License Agreements in Thailand: Choice-of-Law Clauses and Registration Requirements

Subscribe to Updates
Informed Counsel

In order to receive royalties, a trademark owner may license out its trademark rights to another party. To license trademark rights, a trademark license agreement must be made in writing and registered at the Department of Intellectual Property (DIP), in accordance with Section 68 of the Thai Trademark Act. If a trademark license agreement is not registered, it will be void, according to Section 152 of the Civil and Commercial Code and the support of various Supreme Court judgments (Decisions 7770/2547, 6436/2543, and 6190/2550). Registration helps disclose the owner and origin of the goods to avoid confusion among the public.

Sometimes the parties to a trademark license agreement will include a choice-of-law clause in the agreement, designating a foreign governing law. This raises a key question: if a choice-of-law clause indicates that a trademark license agreement is governed by foreign law, does it still need to be registered as required under Thai law? The Central Bankruptcy Court recently answered this question in a case involving the largest amount of compensation ever requested in the history of the courts for breach of a trademark license agreement.

Tilleke & Gibbins’ client, a leading manufacturer and supplier of customized fittings and pipes, is a trademark owner in various countries, including Thailand. A former director of our client assigned its trademark to another party, the opposing party in this case. At a later point, the opposing party granted a license to our client, which became the licensee of the trademark. The former director and the opposing party included a choice-of-law clause in the agreement designating English law as the governing law. The parties did not register the license agreement with the DIP.

At a later point, our client underwent reorganization, during which it was alleged that our client had failed to perform its obligations under the trademark license agreement. The opposing party subsequently filed a request for compensation arising out of a breach of the license agreement for THB 6.9 billion, the largest amount of compensation ever requested in the history of the courts for breach of a trademark license agreement.

Among other defenses, our client argued that the trademark license agreement was void under Section 152 of the Civil and Commercial Code, because it was not registered at the DIP in accordance with Section 68 of the Trademark Act. In rebuttal, the opposing party claimed that the choice-of-law clause in the agreement designating English law as the governing law meant that registration under Thai law was not required.

In Thailand, a trademark license agreement is based on the general legal principle of freedom of contract. The parties to a trademark license agreement may essentially agree on any term in the agreement as long as it is not prohibited by law.

In this case, the parties chose a foreign law to govern the trademark license agreement to avoid having to comply with requirements under Thai law. Generally, a dispute regarding a trademark license agreement falls within the jurisdiction of the Intellectual Property and International Trade Court. However, as the dispute in this case was raised while our client was undergoing reorganization, jurisdiction fell within the purview of the Central Bankruptcy Court.

The Central Bankruptcy Court decided that the trademark license agreement was required to be registered in Thailand because the trademarks were registered and protected under Thai law. Because the trademark license agreement was not registered in Thailand, the agreement was void, in accordance with Section 68 of the Trademark Act and Section 152 of the Civil and Commercial Code. Therefore, the opposing party had no right to claim THB 6.9 billion in compensation.

Notably, the Central Bankruptcy Court did not state that the choice-of-law clause was invalid. Instead, the Court clarified that the choice-of-law clause did not serve as an exception to Section 68. Regardless of the choice-of-law clause, the trademark license agreement was still required to be registered with the DIP. Licensors and licensees should be aware of this ruling and ensure that their trademark license agreements are registered in Thailand.

Download Full Article
Related Professionals

Practices

Intellectual Property

Location

RELATED INSIGHTS​ 

February 25, 2026
Tilleke & Gibbins has updated the Vietnam chapter in the newly released Licensing 2026 guide, published by Lexology Panoramic. The comparative guide provides companies and other interested readers with information on licensing law and practice in various countries around the world. Licensing 2026 provides detailed information on the following topics: Restrictions, laws and licensing arrangements Intellectual property issues: Paris Convention for the Protection of Industrial Property, contesting the validity of licensor’s IP rights, invalidity and expiry of IP rights, security interests, proceedings against third parties, sublicensing, jointly owned IP, first to file, scope of patent protection, trade secrets, copyright Software licensing: Perpetual licensing, legal requirements, user restrictions Royalties and payments, currency conversion, and taxes: Relevant legislation, restrictions, taxation of foreign licensors Competition law issues: Restrictions on trade, legal restrictions, and IP-related court rulings Indemnification, disclaimers, and damages: Prevalence and enforceability of indemnity provisions and contractual waivers of damages Termination: Right to terminate, impact of termination Bankruptcy: Impact of licensee or licensor bankruptcy Dispute resolution: Governing law, arbitration, enforceability, injunctive relief, contractual waivers The Vietnam chapter is available below as a PDF. Readers can gain 30 days of complementary access to the full Licensing 2026 guide and the rest of Lexology Panoramic’s varied offerings through this link.
Read More
January 30, 2026
On December 26, 2025, the government of Vietnam promulgated Decree No. 341/2025/ND-CP on administrative sanctions for violations of copyright and related rights (Decree 341), with an effective date of February 15, 2026. The new decree replaces Decree No. 131/2013/ND-CP, as amended, and represents the first comprehensive revision of the administrative enforcement framework in this area in eight years. Legislative Context and Objectives Decree 341 reflects Vietnam’s evolving copyright and related-rights framework, particularly in light of the country’s commitments under bilateral, regional, and multilateral treaties governing the digital environment. While the decree retains a number of provisions from the previous regime, it also introduces significant amendments to infringing acts, penalty thresholds, remedial measures, and enforcement procedures. The primary objectives of the new decree are to (i) enhance the deterrent effect of administrative sanctions; (ii) harmonize sanctions with the 2025 amendments to the Law on Intellectual Property and criminal law principles; and (iii) address enforcement challenges arising from online and cross-border exploitation of copyrighted works. Expanded Scope of Sanctionable Subjects Under Decree 341, administrative sanctions apply not only to Vietnamese entities committing infringing acts within Vietnam, but also to Vietnamese and foreign entities that commit acts of infringement on the internet where the protected content is accessed, consumed, or exploited by users in Vietnam. This expansion reflects the realities of cross-border digital exploitation. However, the decree does not yet provide precise definitions of key terms such as “users” or “consumers” of digital content in Vietnam, which may require further regulatory clarification. Monetary Penalties and Penalty Structure The statutory maximum fines remain unchanged, at VND 250 million for individuals and VND 500 million for organizations, but the penalty framework is substantially restructured. Fines are now calibrated based on three core criteria: (i) the amount of illegal profit obtained; (ii) the level of
Read More
January 30, 2026
Vietnam’s Intellectual Property (IP) Law, despite being amended in 2022, underwent another significant revision at the end of 2025. The latest amendment aimed to address five major policy objectives set by the Vietnamese government, including promoting innovation, digital transformation, and international integration. Among the most notable changes in the 2025 IP Law, which takes effect on 1 April 2026, is the expansion of industrial design protection under Article 4.13. The revised definition now includes partial designs and intangible designs, marking a transformative shift in Vietnam’s industrial design regime. This change has particularly significant implications on designs classified under Class 32 of the Locarno Classification—which covers graphic designs, logos, ornamentation, surface patterns, arrangements, and other intangible products. These designs, previously excluded from protection in Vietnam, are now recognized under the new legal framework. Background: Status of Class 32 Designs Before 2026 Th Intellectual Property Office of Vietnam currently applies the 13th edition of the Locarno Classification for industrial design filings. However, not all classes in this system have historically been eligible for protection. Under the 2022 IP Law, Class 32 designs were explicitly excluded based on the following legal grounds: Definition under Article 4.13 (2022 IP Law): “An industrial design is the external appearance of a product or a component for assembly into a complex product, expressed in shapes, lines, colors, or a combination thereof, and visible during the exploitation of the product’s utility or the complex product.” Product requirements under Article 21.2 of Circular 23/2023/TT-BKHCN: A product is defined as an object, a tool, a device, or means, manufactured by industrial or handicraft methods, with clear structure and function. A component for assembly into a complex product must be capable of independent circulation and detachable from the complex product. Based on these definitions, Class 32 designs, such as graphical
Read More
December 30, 2025
The Intellectual Property Office of Vietnam (IP Office), with support from the Japan International Cooperation Agency (JICA), is drafting additional annexes to its Guidelines for Patent Examination, focusing on the examination of patent applications in the pharmaceutical and biotechnology sectors. The new annexes are expected to be officially issued in early 2026 as Annexes III and IV, following the successful issuance in 2023 of Annexes I and II addressing computer program-related inventions. The IP Office recently organized a seminar to gather feedback on the draft annexes from intellectual property representatives, academic institutions, research institutes, and other interested parties, emphasizing its intention to receive further constructive opinions to refine the guidelines for pharmaceuticals and biotechnology. Why These Guidelines Matter Patent examination in Vietnam has traditionally relied on the Guidelines for Patent Examination issued under Decision No. 487/QD-SHTT (2010), recently supplemented by Annexes I and II. While these documents provide a solid foundation, they do not fully address practical challenges in examining pharmaceutical and biotech inventions, particularly issues related to clarity, sufficiency of disclosure, enablement, features of function and utility, combination therapies, and inventions involving artificial intelligence (AI) applications in these fields. Annexes III and IV aim to close these gaps by introducing structured principles and illustrative examples. Guidance on Patent Specification Requirements Annex III provides detailed guidance on the requirements for patent specifications in pharmaceuticals and biotechnology, covering two main parts: Part A addresses sufficiency of disclosure, clarity of specifications, and consistency between claims and descriptions. Part B covers inventions related to Markush-type compounds, claims containing exclusion statements (disclaimers), and additional experimental data submitted during examination. The Guidelines outline specific disclosure requirements for subject matters such as compounds, formulations, pharmaceutical compositions, genes, polypeptides, proteins, vectors, transgenic organisms, modified organisms, and hybrid cells. Annex III emphasizes that disclaimers are not accepted
Read More