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​ 

November 13, 2025
Tilleke & Gibbins has contributed the Thailand chapter to Franchise 2026, part of the International Comparative Legal Guides (ICLG) series published by Global Legal Group. This annual guide offers comparative analysis of franchise laws and regulations across jurisdictions worldwide, providing practical insights for businesses and legal practitioners operating in the global franchise sector. Each country chapter in the 12th edition follows a Q&A format covering key aspects of franchise law and operations, including: Relevant legislation and rules governing franchise transactions Business organization options for franchised operations Competition law considerations Protection of intellectual property and brands Liability issues and risk mitigation Governing law and dispute resolution Real estate matters Online trading regulations Termination requirements Joint employer risks and vicarious liability Currency controls and taxation Commercial agency considerations Good faith obligations and fair dealing requirements Ongoing relationship management Franchise renewal processes Franchise migration procedures Sustainability commitments Electronic signatures and document retention Current developments in the franchise sector The Thailand chapter, authored by Alan Adcock and Kasama Sriwatanakul, provides an in-depth overview of the legal landscape for franchising and franchising-related activities in Thailand. The complete Thailand chapter is available as a PDF below. The Thailand chapter—and the full Franchise 2026 guide—are also freely available on the ICLG website.
Read More
October 26, 2025
AI-generated songs are now making waves in Vietnam on platforms like TikTok, with tracks such as “Say mot doi vi em” quickly gaining popularity and sparking widespread attention. This phenomenon raises a host of legal and ethical questions: Who is the author of these songs? Can they be protected by copyright? Who is responsible if there is an infringement? These questions are becoming increasingly urgent as AI music becomes more mainstream in Vietnam. Copyright Protection for AI-Generated Music in Vietnam Under current Vietnamese law, copyright protection is reserved for works that bear the mark of human creativity. The 2022 amendments to Vietnam’s Intellectual Property Law reaffirm that only works created by humans are eligible for copyright. In practice, if a human meaningfully contributes to the creative process—by providing prompts, making selections, editing, or arranging—their contribution may be protected. However, if a song is generated entirely by AI without significant human input, it is unlikely to qualify for copyright protection. When an AI-generated song does not qualify for copyright protection, the question arises as to whether the person who writes the prompts, edits, or compiles the work can still be considered the owner of an asset under the Vietnamese Civil Code. According to Article 105 of the Civil Code 2015, assets include objects, money, valuable papers, and property rights. While AI-generated music that is not protected by copyright is not considered money or valuable papers, it may be regarded as an object (in the form of a digital file or recording) or as a property right if it can be possessed, used, transferred, or exploited for value. Use of AI-Generated Works Without Copyright Protection If a song is not protected by copyright, does that mean anyone can use it freely? Not necessarily. The absence of copyright does not mean the
Read More
October 24, 2025
Thailand currently lacks a specific franchise act. Consequently, the legality of any franchise agreement is determined by its compliance with various existing laws, such as the Civil and Commercial Code, the Trademark Act B.E. 2534 (1991) (as amended), and the Unfair Contract Terms Act B.E. 2530 (1997). Thailand is a freedom-to-contract jurisdiction. This allows for a high degree of flexibility and autonomy in contractual arrangements, provided that the terms do not violate any laws or public policy and do not fall under the scope of unfair contract terms. Given this, the requirement for fairness in franchise agreement terms often leads to uncertainty, but decisions from the Trade Competition Commission of Thailand (TCCT) can provide guidance on whether specific contentious terms are in fact fair.  One issue worth examining in this light is the inclusion of terms on nonrefundable franchise fees and strict purchasing conditions. Franchise Fee: Unfair to Refuse Refund? Nonrefundable franchise fees represent a significant upfront investment for franchisees, often becoming a point of contention if the franchise relationship deteriorates or the franchisor ceases operations. Their fairness and enforceability are frequently scrutinized by regulatory bodies like the TCCT, highlighting the critical balance between contractual freedom and franchisee protection. Faced with one such case, the TCCT considered whether it was unfair for the franchisor to refuse to refund the franchise fee after the franchisor ceased operations.  The franchisee had entered into a service agreement on August 2, 2021, and begun operating on October 9, 2021. However, by November 21, 2023, the franchisee was notified that the system would be shut down for maintenance, and by December 26, 2023, the franchisor announced the cessation of operations due to financial losses. The franchisee then requested a refund of the franchise fee. Unfortunately for the franchisee, the TCCT found that the franchisor’s
Read More
October 23, 2025
Myanmar’s customs authorities have introduced new procedures allowing copyright holders to protect their intellectual property from infringing goods at the border. The Ministry of Finance and Revenue issued Notification No. 107/2025 on September 11, 2025, establishing rules and requirements for customs recordation under the Copyright Law of 2019. The notification includes eight official forms for copyright-related customs matters—three for applicants and five for the Customs Department. This was followed by Customs Department Announcement No. 1/2025, dated September 29, 2025, which details the security required for suspended goods. Customs recordation provides a proactive mechanism for rights holders to prevent importation of pirated works. By registering their works with the Customs Department, rights holders gain access to enhanced border enforcement measures, empowering customs officials to identify and intercept pirated goods before they enter the market. While copyright protection in Myanmar arises automatically under the Copyright Law of 2019, a registration certificate for copyright or related rights is required to apply for customs recordation. Customs Recordation Registered copyright and related rights holders can apply directly or through authorized legal representatives for customs recordation to prevent cross-border trade in pirated works. Applications must use the prescribed form and include all supporting documentary evidence specified in the form. The Customs Department will notify applicants within 15 days of receiving their application. Each recordation remains valid for two years from the date of acceptance and may be renewed for successive two-year periods by submitting a renewal application at least 30 days before expiration. Rights holders whose works are recorded must notify the Customs Department within five days of any amendment or withdrawal of information at the Intellectual Property Department. Suspension Orders Registered copyright and related rights holders can request a suspension order to prevent release of pirated goods into free circulation, regardless of whether they
Read More