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

October 10, 2019

Trademarks and Thailand’s New Medicinal Cannabis Sector

World Trademark Review

Thailand caught the cannabis industry by surprise in January this year when it became the first Asian country to legalise medicinal cannabis, while at the same time restricting foreign participation in the industry for at least the first five years and thwarting cannabis-related patent applications.

With certain amendments to the Narcotics Act and with Thai Food and Drug Administration medical cannabis registration pathways set out in the soon-to-be promulgated implementing regulations, a complex roadmap of who can be licensed for what purposes seeks to ensure governmental control over the process for the beginning stages. There are currently four types of licences and seven entities that have standing to apply for these. Each entity is only eligible for certain licensed activities and for certain purposes. The system of legislation and licences is designed to exclude foreign participation in the Thai cannabis industry by erecting several barriers.

The first barrier to foreign participation is that for the first five years, starting from 19 February 2019, only state agencies may obtain a licence to produce, import or export cannabis. The only way for a private entity to enter the industry is to act jointly with one of the few state agencies that can acquire these commercialisation licences.

The second barrier is that only Thai private entities may participate, even after the five-year government development period. Only a private entity with an office in Thailand and at least two-thirds of directors, partners, or shareholders having Thai nationality, may act jointly with a state agency to acquire or share these types of commercialisation licences or later apply for one on their own. While foreign entities can certainly create local Thai subsidiaries and then apply for a partnership, it is unclear whether it will receive unjustified additional scrutiny or whether the Ministry of Public Health will even support this kind of application.

The third barrier has been to use quasi-emergency powers to prevent foreign competition. The Patent Office took action to prevent foreign competition by rejecting seven pending cannabis patent applications from foreign applicants, likely violating the World Trade Organisation’s (WTO) Agreement on Trade Related Aspects of Intellectual Property. By rejecting the patent applications, Thailand has ensured that Thai enterprises have complete freedom to enter the market without being blocked by foreign parties’ patent rights.

Their basis for rejecting the applications was that they would be against “public order and morality”, since the amendments had not yet come into force, rendering the applications illegal. However, under this reasoning, medicinal applications for cannabis will be patentable, but recreational applications will not. Since a single invention may have multiple applications, problems arise with regard to arbitrary application review procedures. More questions loom on the horizon for foreign patent applicants as, under the legislation, it is illegal for non-Thai entities to engage in the cannabis trade. Will this also render any foreign applicant’s patent invalid for violating “public order and morality”?

With respect to registration of cannabis-related trademarks in Thailand, the examination of such marks is still in the early stages and is not subject to the same emergency powers that have been imposed on patent applications. At present, it appears that the current position of the Thai registrars is that goods related to cannabis for medical purposes are acceptable, but that trademarks made up of words or images relating to cannabis are not and trademark applications containing such words or images will be refused. However, as Thailand’s cannabis laws and policies continue to evolve, the position on trademarks may change as well.

Thailand’s actions to intentionally exclude foreign participation at the current stage of the industry calls into question its commitment to several major WTO treaties. Fortunately, the amendment allows for the minister of public health to allow new entities to acquire licences as deemed necessary. This is a key allowance, as who may be allowed access to the industry is open-ended and – with a party who fought for liberal cannabis policies at the reins – promising. With a population currently in need of medicinal cannabis, the facilities established by the government might not be able to supply enough medical-grade cannabis for the current need or, even if it can supply sufficient, it may not be able to supply it quickly enough. This need for assistance may open up the door for foreign entities to enter the market and provide access to sufficient medicinal cannabis to meet current and future demand.

 

This article was first published by World Trademark Review on September 5, 2019 and is reproduced here with thanks.

RELATED INSIGHTS​ 

September 9, 2026
On August 5, 2026, the Consumer Case Division of Thailand’s Civil Court rendered a judgment in a case involving a beauty clinic that advertised acne scar treatments using claims that the clinic was operated by a specialist physician and that the treatment, allegedly involving stem cell technology, could permanently remove acne scars. The plaintiff brought a claim against both the physician-owner and the clinic company, alleging that the advertisements were false and induced her to purchase the treatment. The court found that the clinic was liable for the false representations and that the physician-owner, as both the authorized director of the company and the medical practitioner who provided treatment, was jointly responsible. Although the plaintiff could not fully prove all damages claimed, the court awarded compensation of THB 20,000, together with interest. While the judgment arose from a consumer protection dispute, it serves as a valuable reminder that medical facility advertisements in Thailand are regulated and may expose clinics and healthcare providers not only to regulatory enforcement but also to civil liability from patients who rely on misleading promotional claims. Regulatory Framework Governing Medical Facility Advertisements Medical facility advertising in Thailand is governed by the Medical Facility Act B.E. 2541 (1998), as amended by the Medical Facility Act (No. 4) B.E. 2559 (2016). The principal secondary legislation is the Department of Health Service Support (DoHSS) Notification Re: Rules, Procedures, Conditions, and Fees for an Advertisement or Publication Concerning a Medical Facility, which came into force on November 25, 2019. Under this notification, “advertising” includes any act, by any means, that causes members of the public to see, hear, or otherwise become aware of a message, sound, or image for the commercial benefit of a medical facility. This broad definition covers not only traditional media but also clinic websites, social
September 9, 2026
On June 30, 2026, Indonesia’s National Agency of Drug and Food Control (BPOM) issued BPOM Regulation No. 11 of 2026 on Food Packaging, which expands the list of approved food-contact substances and recognizes a broader range of permissible functions for those substances. The new regulation, which revokes BPOM Regulation No. 20 of 2019, reflects developments in packaging technology and materials science. Although the new regulation provides more advantages to business actors by adding more food contact substances to the approved list for use in food packaging, there are more stringent rules and restrictions for testing. One of the most significant changes is a comprehensive migration-testing framework that sets out requirements for packaging materials, testing conditions, food simulants, and specific migration limits. Overall and Specific Migration Under BPOM Regulation No. 20 of 2019, migration requirements were primarily set out within the lists of approved food-contact substances and packaging materials. BPOM Regulation No. 11 of 2026 instead expressly requires packaging materials that come into direct contact with food to meet both overall and specific migration limits. These are defined as follows: Overall migration: The total quantity of all substances that migrate from the packaging, regardless of whether the substances are hazardous or nonhazardous to health. Specific migration: The quantity of a particular identified substance known to be hazardous to health that migrates from the packaging. Stricter Limits on Heavy Metals The overall migration limit for plastic packaging remains unchanged under both regulations at 60 mg/kg or 10 mg/dm². However, the new regulation introduces significant changes to the regulation of heavy metals. Under the 2019 regulation, four heavy metals—lead, cadmium, chromium VI, and mercury—were subject to a single combined limit of 1 mg/kg. The 2026 regulation, however, requires each heavy metal to meet its own individual specific migration limit, adds arsenic as
September 7, 2026
Indonesia’s Constitutional Court (Mahkamah Konstitusi) has reinstated a key provision limiting pharmaceutical patent protection, signaling a renewed commitment to balancing patent rights with public access to medicines. In its ruling to Case No. 255/PUU-XXIII/2025, the court partially granted a petition for judicial review of Law No. 65 of 2024, which had amended the country’s Patent Law, and ordered the restoration of a provision that had excluded certain pharmaceutical inventions from patentability. The decision took effect immediately upon its pronouncement at the court’s plenary session on August 28, 2026. Background The petition challenged the removal of article 4(f) from Law No. 13 of 2016 concerning Patents (Patent Law), as amended by Law No. 65 of 2024. Article 4(f) had excluded from patentability certain inventions relating to new uses of known substances. The petitioners argued that removing this provision would open the door to patent protection for second medical use inventions and facilitate patent evergreening—practices that can extend exclusivity periods, delay generic market entry, and reduce public access to affordable medicines. The petitioners included several patient advocacy and public-interest organizations: the Indonesian Dialysis Patients Community Association, the Indonesian Association of Drug Abuse Victims (PKNI), the Indonesian Pulmonary Hypertension Foundation (YHPI), the Rekat Peduli Indonesia Foundation, and the Indonesian Positive Women’s Association (IPPI), along with the Indonesia for Global Justice Association and four individual petitioners. The petitioners also challenged the constitutionality of the phrase “interested party” in article 70(1) of the Patent Law, arguing that it should be construed expressly to clarify who has standing to appeal a decision to grant a patent before the Board of Patent Appeal, and to allow a broader range of parties—such as patent holders, licensees, consumer organizations, prosecutors, aggrieved third parties, and others who may suffer direct or indirect harm from the grant of a patent—to
September 4, 2026
Blind boxes and collectibles have become increasingly popular, driven by the excitement of not knowing which character or design will be revealed until the package is opened. While most visible in the art toy market, the same concept is also used in the food industry. Confectionery, snacks, and other food products are sometimes sold with toys, character figures, cards, or other collectibles. A package might, for example, contain one of ten possible characters, with consumers knowing that an item is included but not which one they will receive. Some collections may also feature rare or “secret” items. For food businesses, however, adding a randomized toy or collectible involves more than a marketing decision. The food, the nonfood item, and the randomized mechanism may each raise different regulatory considerations in Thailand. Thai FDA Requirements for Nonfood Objects Packaged with Food The main food regulatory consideration is Ministry of Public Health Notification No. 310 B.E. 2551 (2008), which regulates food packaged together with things or objects that are not food. Under Notification No. 310, certain nonfood objects may be packaged together with food where they fall within specified exceptions, including objects that serve the following purposes: Maintaining the quality or standard of the food, such as a desiccant or oxygen absorber; Serving as a seasoning or as part of food preparation, such as chili powder sachets or seasoning sachets contained in instant noodle packages; or Functioning as an eating or food-preparation utensil, such as a spoon or fork included with instant noodles. Other nonfood objects that do not fall within these categories generally should not be placed inside the food container together with the food. Where a toy, collectible, or other nonfood object is intended to be sold together with a food product, businesses should therefore carefully consider the nature of