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

March 9, 2015

Update on the National Intellectual Property Center for Enforcement

Subscribe to Updates
Informed Counsel

Since 2007, Thailand has found itself on the Priority Watch List (PWL) of the U.S. Trade Representative Special 301 Report—a list which identifies countries that provide inadequate and ineffective protection of intellectual property rights or unfair and inequitable market access to U.S. persons that rely on intellectual property rights. The Thai government, including the Department of Intellectual Property (DIP), has taken several steps to address the issues and endeavor to have Thailand removed from the PWL, in an effort to improve the country’s image as a safe choice for investment.

One way in which the Thai government has attempted to remove Thailand from the PWL has been to set up the National Intellectual Property Center for Enforcement (NICE), an established but not-yet-operational government organization which aims to uphold and advance intellectual property rights.

NICE was established and formed in 2013 by Ms. Pajchima Tanasanti, the former Director General of the DIP. The purpose of NICE is to promote cooperation among the 25 government agencies responsible for enforcing IP rights in cases involving significant offenders, such as organized and transnational criminals. NICE is directed by the DIP and uses the facilities of the Ministry of Commerce to coordinate its operations. It is modeled after the U.S. National Intellectual Property Rights Coordination Center (U.S. IPR Center), which is supervised by the U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE), a federal law enforcement agency under the U.S. Department of Homeland Security (DHS).

Thailand has not yet authorized or allocated a budget to permanently staff NICE, and the participating agencies currently operate voluntarily through working groups that address key goals and jointly pursue enforcement cases. Some of the 25 government agencies that comprise NICE are the DIP, the Royal Thai Police, the Department of Special Investigation, the Office of the Attorney General, the Department of Agriculture, the Customs Department, the Ministry of Information and Communication Technology, and the Consumer Protection Board.

In October 2014, the new Director General of the DIP, Ms. Malee Choklumlerd, held a meeting to discuss cooperation between NICE with the U.S. IPR Center. The then DHS allocated two officers from the U.S. IPR Center to Thailand from November 1 to December 15, 2014, for them to share their IP enforcement experiences and develop Thai officers’ IP enforcement capabilities. The Thai officers also exchanged their experiences with the U.S. IPR Center officers and, in particular, sought the help of the U.S. IPR Center officers to solve a range of problems and limitations they had encountered throughout their work.

During the ICE officers’ visit to Thailand, the ICE officers assisted in a number of raid actions in the “Red Zones” of Bangkok (Pantip Plaza, Klong Thom, Saphan Lek, Baan Mor, Patpong, Silom, MBK, and Sukhumvit Road),  Eastern Thailand (Pattaya), Southern Thailand (Phuket, Krabi, and Samui), and Northern Thailand (Chiang Mai and Chiang Rai). Some of our clients also participated in these operations, along with the DIP and the U.S. IPR Center. The operations were a huge success.

These developments are a sign that NICE is closer to becoming operational. We hope that once NICE is fully up and running, IPR enforcement will be strengthened in Thailand and the way will be paved for Thailand to be removed from the PWL.

Download Full Article
Related Professionals

Practices

Intellectual Property

Location

RELATED INSIGHTS​ 

August 4, 2026
Intellectual property (IP) protection sometimes hinges on fame and recognition. However, this alone will not always be sufficient to overcome an IP dispute when it involves contractual obligations or registered rights. Below are five cases from around the world that tackle some of the basic issues in IP registration, ownership, commercialization, and enforcement. 1. USA: Taylor Swift Trademark Application Refused Taylor Swift recently filed a trademark application to register “The Life of a Showgirl,” which is the title of her 12th studio album. When examining a trademark application, the examiner considers various factors before deciding whether it should be registered. One of these factors is whether there is a likelihood of confusion (i.e., would a regular consumer mistake the origin of the trademark). In Taylor Swift’s case, the US Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO) decided that that there would be a risk of confusion. This decision was based on the existing registered trademark, “Confessions of a Showgirl,” owned by Maren Wade, which was registered in 2015. The USPTO refused Taylor Swift’s application based on the shared key distinctive element “of a showgirl,” the lack of sufficient distinguishing terms, the marks being used in overlapping markets (entertainment and performances), and because consumers may assume a common commercial source. Maren Wade then filed a lawsuit in California against Taylor Swift and her affiliated companies, arguing that Taylor Swfit’s branding is confusingly similar in structure, wording, and overall commercial impression to her registered mark. She is also drawing on the USPTO’s refusal of Taylor Swift’s application to support her argument of a likelihood of confusion. A judgment has not yet been reached in this case, but it serves as an important reminder of the importance of satisfying the essential elements required for IP registration. 2. Australia: Katy Perry v. Katie Perry In
Read More
July 27, 2026
Vietnam’s new E-Commerce Law, which took effect on 1 July 2026 along with its implementing Decree No. 248/2026/ND-CP (Decree 248), marks a significant development in the country’s approach to online intellectual property (IP) enforcement, reflecting a clear shift from a reactive model of intermediary liability to one that expects platforms to play a more active role in preventing infringement. From notice-and-takedown to platform responsibility The most significant change introduced by the E-Commerce Law is the transformation of the legal role of e-commerce platforms. The existing safe harbor provisions under the IP Law and the copyright notice-and-takedown regime established by Decree 17/2023/ND-CP (Decree 17) largely required intermediaries to act only after receiving notice of infringement. Once infringing content had been removed, the platform’s legal obligation was generally considered fulfilled. The new legislation adopts a fundamentally different approach. Article 17 of the E-Commerce Law requires intermediary platforms to screen information relating to goods and services before publication in order to prevent listings involving counterfeit or IP-infringing goods, and goods of unknown origin. Rather than relying exclusively on complaints from rights holders, platforms are now expected to implement preventive measures before infringing listings become publicly available. Decree 248 further requires platforms to update keyword filters based on recommendations issued by competent authorities. These filtering mechanisms are intended to prevent prohibited listings from appearing on the platform and represent a further move away from a purely complaint-driven enforcement model. The legislation also introduces Vietnam’s first statutory stay-down obligation. Under the E-Commerce Law and Decree 248, major digital platforms must maintain automated systems capable of reviewing, warning against, and removing unlawful listings while also implementing measures to prevent repeat violations, defined under Decree 248 as conduct that has previously been identified and handled by the platform, but continues to recur. This obligation addresses one
Read More
July 27, 2026
Tilleke & Gibbins’ intellectual property specialists have authored the Thailand chapter of Trade Secrets 2026 from Chambers and Partners. This global guide examines the legal frameworks governing trade secret protection, enforcement, and litigation across jurisdictions worldwide. The Thailand chapter provides a comprehensive overview of the country’s legal regime for protecting confidential business information, covering the legal framework, trade secret misappropriation, litigation procedures, remedies, and dispute resolution. Some topics covered include: Protectable trade secrets Reasonable measures to maintain secrecy Employee confidentiality Trade secret licensing Civil and criminal remedies Litigation procedures and injunctions Damages and other remedies Mediation and arbitration The guide also examines practical issues relating to safeguarding trade secrets, defending against allegations of misappropriation, and managing trade secret disputes in Thailand. Chambers and Partners’ Global Practice Guides provide in-house counsel with authoritative commentary on practical legal issues affecting business, enabling readers to compare legislation and procedures across multiple jurisdictions. The Thailand chapter of Trade Secrets 2026 is available as a PDF through the button below. The full guide can be accessed for free on the Chambers and Partners website.
Read More
July 27, 2026
In March 2025, Thailand’s Central Intellectual Property and International Trade Court (IP&IT Court) issued a landmark judgment in favor of Luckin Coffee, China’s leading retail coffee chain. The judgment marked a significant turnaround following earlier trademark litigation involving Luckin Coffee from 2021 to 2023 that had generated widespread public attention and raised questions about the protection available to legitimate foreign brand owners in Thailand. In a significant subsequent development, Thailand’s Court of Appeal for Specialized Cases has now affirmed the IP&IT Court’s judgment in its entirety. The appellate decision brings clarity to one of Thailand’s most closely watched trademark disputes. Significantly, this is the first case in Thailand to formally recognize the trademark squatting principle. The Court of Appeal confirmed that Luckin Coffee has a better right to the disputed mark and ordered cancellation of the defendants’ trademark registration—a key application of the “better right” doctrine. The court also upheld the substantial damages awarded at first instance, providing important guidance on assessing harm from systematic trademark squatting. Award-Winning Judgment Affirmed in Its Entirety The significance of the first-instance judgment extended beyond the outcome for Luckin Coffee. The IP&IT Court judgment was subsequently recognized in the IP&IT Court’s Distinguished Judgment Awards in 2025, reflecting the complexity, novelty, and legal significance of the issues considered in the case. The defendants nevertheless appealed the judgment, challenging several key aspects of the IP&IT Court’s decision. Luckin Coffee continued to entrust Tilleke & Gibbins as their sole attorney to pursue the case at the appellate level. After considering the defendants’ appeal and Luckin Coffee’s submissions in response, the Court of Appeal affirmed the first-instance judgment in its entirety. The judgment was announced on July 8, 2026. Better Right to the Marks The Court of Appeal confirmed Luckin Coffee’s superior rights. The orders include cancellation
Read More