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​ 

August 21, 2025
Although the “passing off” principle has sometimes faced criticism for potentially broadening trademark protection—particularly in cases involving unregistered or unconventional marks like shapes, scents, or sounds—it serves an essential purpose. It safeguards the rights of business owners and shields consumers from deception, ensuring fair competition and reflecting the realities of modern commerce. What is passing off, and why is registrability not required? The passing-off principle is a legal concept rooted in English law, aimed at preventing a person from falsely representing or using a mark similar to another’s in a way that causes consumers to mistakenly believe the goods or services come from the same source. Under Thai law, the passing-off principle is provided under Section 46 of the Thai Trademark Act, which states: No person shall be entitled to bring legal proceedings to prevent or to recover damages for the infringement of an unregistered trademark. The provisions of this Section shall not affect the right of the owner of an unregistered trademark to bring legal proceedings against any person for passing off goods as those of the owner of the trademark. The passing-off principle can be interpreted as a practical legal concept. It does not require proof that the mark is registrable or meets the registrability criteria under trademark law. It is sufficient to show that the mark has established goodwill and that the other party’s use of a similar mark is likely to confuse consumers, making it a straightforward and effective tool for protecting brand assets. Requiring a claimant to prove that an unregistered mark could have been registered would undermine the very function of passing off. The doctrine was conceived precisely to fill the gaps left by the registration system. Imposing registrability criteria would nullify its function and leave many commercially valuable identifiers unprotected. If the
Read More
August 15, 2025
Indonesia’s Directorate General of Intellectual Property (DGIP) has introduced a temporary feature in its online filing system to accommodate the submission of annual patent working statements. The requirement to submit these annual working statements was introduced under the amended Patent Law enacted on October 28, 2024, but the implementing regulation has still not been issued. Annual Working Statements Article 20A of the amended Patent Law requires all patentees to submit an annual statement regarding the implementation of their patents in Indonesia. This obligation applies to all active patents, regardless of when they were granted. The annual working statement declares the status of implementation of the patented invention within Indonesia. Acceptable forms of implementation include: Manufacturing the patented product (whether commercialized or not) Utilizing the patented process (whether commercialized or not) Importation Licensing If the patent has not yet been implemented in Indonesia, the DGIP provides an option to indicate: “The mentioned registered patent has not been implemented in Indonesia.” The statement must be made using the official template provided by the DGIP through the online filing system. Submission The working statement must be submitted annually no later than December 31 of each calendar year. No supporting documents are needed for the submission apart from the signed form itself. A color scanned copy will suffice; the original document is not required. There is currently no official fee for submitting the working statement. While the submission process may eventually align with annuity fee payments, the current process remains separate due to the pending implementing regulation. The submission process may be subject to change upon issuance of the implementing regulation, which is under discussion and expected in the coming months. In the interim, the DGIP accepts submissions of overdue working statements, allowing patentees to fulfill their obligations retroactively. This flexibility is expected
Read More
July 31, 2025
The Madrid System for international trademark registration provides the opportunity for a simplified and cost-effective way to register trademarks in multiple countries through a single application. Indonesia joined the Madrid System in 2018, and in 2024 alone, it received over 8,600 applications through this system. Despite the system’s effectiveness, it is important for trademark owners to be aware of the potential risks of refusal that can arise during the process of registration. Trademark applicants must pay close attention to these critical points when designating Indonesia. Appointing a Local Representative to Respond An applicant or representative of an international registration (IR) application that has been provisionally refused must appoint a local Indonesian representative in order to submit a response to the provisional refusal. This appointment is solely for the purpose of responding to the refusal in Indonesia; it is not necessary if the IR has not received any rejection. Furthermore, the local representative should not be registered with WIPO, as doing so would affect representation across all designated countries. Timing When it comes to calculating the deadline for responding to a provisional refusal, there is a discrepancy between the methods used by the DGIP and WIPO. Under the Indonesian Trademark Law, trademark owners can file a response within 30 working days, excluding weekends and national holidays. However, the WIPO cover letter accompanying the DGIP’s provisional refusal notice specifies both the start date and the deadline for responding to the notification, which is calculated as 30 calendar days, including weekends and national holidays. Therefore, a response to the provisional refusal of IR should be submitted in accordance with the WIPO cover letter to prevent any formality issue. Grounds for Refusal After an IR application is published in Indonesia’s Trademark Gazette, it undergoes substantive examination by the Directorate General of Intellectual Property (DGIP) examiners. The
Read More
July 30, 2025
Artificial intelligence (AI) model training and data scraping are essential processes in the development of modern AI systems. AI model training involves using large datasets to teach machine learning algorithms to recognize patterns, make predictions, or generate new content. Data scraping refers to the automated extraction of information from websites or digital sources, often to assemble the vast datasets required for effective AI training. As these practices become more widespread, questions about the legality of using third-party content—especially copyrighted works—have become increasingly important. In Thailand, the legal landscape for AI developers is shaped primarily by the Copyright Act, which presents unique challenges due to the absence of a fair-use exception. This article examines the copyright-related risks and legal uncertainties facing AI developers under Thailand’s current copyright law and practices, offering strategic guidance for navigating this complex environment. Copyright Risks in AI Scraping and Training Thailand’s Copyright Act does not provide a broad fair use or fair dealing exception, unlike some other jurisdictions, such as the United States. This absence has significant consequences for AI developers: No general defense for AI training: Any use of copyrighted material for AI model training is presumed to be infringing unless a specific, narrow statutory exception applies or explicit permission is obtained from the rights holder. There is no general legal basis for using copyrighted works in AI training without authorization. Increased rights clearance burden: Developers must identify and secure licenses for every copyrighted work included in their training datasets. Given the scale and diversity of data required for effective AI models, this process can be both impractical and costly. Legal ambiguity and litigation risk: The lack of clear statutory guidance or case law leaves developers in a legal gray area. There is no established precedent clarifying whether certain uses of copyrighted material for
Read More