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

Subscribe to Updates
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.

Download Full Article
Related Professionals

Industries

Life Sciences

Practices

Intellectual Property

Regulatory Affairs

Location

RELATED INSIGHTS​ 

January 5, 2026
On December 31, 2025, Vietnam’s Ministry of Health (MOH) issued Circular No. 57/2025/TT-BYT providing guidance on the classification of medical devices according to technical standards and quality requirements (Circular 57), applicable to procurement activities for medical devices in Vietnam. According to the MOH, the purpose of the classification is to establish a principle-based legal framework and regulations that enable purchasers to easily identify groups of medical devices aligned with their professional requirements and financial capacity. Some of the key stipulations of Circular 57 are outlined below. Basis for Determining Technical Standards and Quality Under Circular 57, the technical standards of medical devices are determined in accordance with Vietnamese laws on standards and technical regulations, through the following means: Certification of conformity with standards in accordance with Vietnamese laws on standards and technical regulations; Results of conformity assessment conducted by an internationally recognized conformity assessment organization or a legally established domestic or foreign conformity assessment organization operating in Vietnam; and Documentation evidencing compliance provided by the medical device owner. The quality of medical devices is determined based on whether the device has been approved for circulation by the relevant marketing authority of one or more jurisdictions. Classification of Medical Devices Circular 57 classifies medical devices into six groups (from Group 1 to Group 6) based on technical standards and quality. Medical devices subject to classification must simultaneously meet technical standards and quality requirements in accordance with professional specifications and user needs, and must be lawfully marketed in Vietnam. Medical devices manufactured in Vietnam may participate in all corresponding groups, provided they meet the technical standards required by the user and are lawfully marketed in Vietnam. Outlook Circular No. 57 will take effect on February 15, 2026, while the classification requirements will become effective on January 1, 2027. Holders of medical
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
November 25, 2025
Food safety incidents can emerge without warning, requiring businesses to act swiftly to protect consumers and comply with regulatory obligations. Across Southeast Asia, Thailand, Vietnam, and Indonesia have each developed comprehensive food recall frameworks designed to ensure rapid removal of unsafe products from the market while holding businesses accountable for compliance failures. While these three jurisdictions share common objectives—protecting public health and ensuring food safety—each has crafted distinct regulatory approaches reflecting their unique administrative structures, enforcement priorities, and legal traditions. Understanding these differences is essential for food businesses operating in the region, as recall procedures, timelines, reporting requirements, and penalties vary significantly across borders. This guide, available through the button below, examines the food recall regulations in Indonesia, Thailand, and Vietnam, providing practical guidance on legal requirements, procedural steps, and compliance obligations in each market.
Read More