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​ 

July 13, 2026
When Decree No. 186/2026/ND-CP (Decree 186) takes effect on July 15, 2026, it will introduce the most significant reform of Vietnam’s administrative IP enforcement framework since Decree 99/2013/ND-CP was issued in 2013. These changes are expected to make administrative enforcement faster, more accessible, and better suited to the realities of modern IP disputes. Below are the principal reforms and their practical implications for rights holders and enforcement practitioners. The End of Notarization and Consular Legalization Among the most welcome procedural changes is the abolition of the notarization and consular legalization requirement for powers of attorney (POA) submitted in administrative enforcement proceedings. Under the previous regime, foreign rights holders were generally required to execute a POA, then have it notarized and consular legalized (if seeking customs recordal). In practice, this process frequently delayed enforcement by four to eight weeks, often long enough for infringing goods to disappear before authorities could intervene. Decree 186 removes this bottleneck, now requiring only an original or certified copy of the POA. If the document is in a foreign language, a Vietnamese translation is sufficient, provided it is certified by a competent authority or confirmed by the authorized Vietnamese IP representative. Consular legalization and notarization are no longer required. For rights holders, the practical impact is substantial. Administrative enforcement files that previously took weeks to prepare can now be completed in a matter of days, allowing much faster responses in time-sensitive matters such as warehouse raids, border interventions, and trade-fair enforcement. The decree also introduces a useful administrative simplification. Where an original POA has already been submitted to the same enforcement authority and remains valid, applicants may rely on a copy of that earlier submission by identifying the previous case file. This eliminates unnecessary duplication for rights holders pursuing multiple enforcement actions before the same
Read More
July 9, 2026
Recycling, upcycling, and refill-packaging models are now widely promoted as ways to reduce waste, lower carbon emissions, and respond to consumer demand for sustainable products. However, complications arise when these environmentally driven trends intersect with intellectual property law—particularly where reused or altered packaging continues to display third parties’ registered trademarks. Adding to this complexity, Thailand’s draft Sustainable Packaging Management Act aims to introduce new environmental compliance obligations that businesses must navigate alongside existing trademark concerns. Recycling and upcycling packaging may infringe trademark rights, especially in cases not protected by the first-sale doctrine—the principle that a trademark owner’s rights over a particular mark-bearing product end once the owner first sells it. Furthermore, even refill packaging carries legal risk due to specific statutory prohibitions under Thai law. Compounding these challenges, the draft Sustainable Packaging Management Act will impose extended producer responsibility (EPR) obligations on manufacturers and brand owners, requiring them to manage packaging throughout its lifecycle. These overlapping legal frameworks could deter manufacturers from pursuing ESG-aligned business models unless businesses understand how to navigate both trademark and environmental requirements. Under Thai law, this issue remains uncertain because the Trademark Act does not expressly codify the first sale doctrine, also known as the exhaustion of trademark rights. Generally, this doctrine provides that once a trademark owner has lawfully sold goods bearing its trademark, the owner’s right to control further resale of those particular goods is exhausted. The rationale is that the owner has already received commercial benefit from the first authorized sale; therefore, the purchaser should be free to resell or otherwise dispose of the goods. Although the doctrine is not expressly codified in the Trademark Act, Thai courts have recognized it in relation to genuine goods and parallel imports, as seen in a Supreme Court Judgment No. 2817/2543 in which the
Read More
July 6, 2026
Indonesia’s regulation on reporting online intellectual property (IP) infringement provides comprehensive procedural guidance for IP rights holders and their licensees in reporting online infringement complaints. Issued in December 2025 by the Ministry of Law as Regulation No. 47 of 2025 regarding Handling of Intellectual Property Infringement Reports in Electronic Systems, this regulation covers all types of IP rights. It also specifies documentation when reporting infringement, and lays out the procedures for examination, verification, and enforcement actions. Submission of Complaints Complainants may submit reports through the online system of the Directorate General of Intellectual Property (DGIP) or in person at the DGIP office. Complaints may also be filed through an authorized proxy. Under the regulation, complainants are required to provide the following information and documents: Personal details of the complainant; Brief description of the protected work or subject matter (i.e., type of IP and name or address of the infringing website, portal, account, or application, or a link to the location of the infringing content); Complete description of the alleged infringement; Certificate of registration or recordal of the relevant IP; Recordal of IP license agreement, if any; and Other supporting evidence. Verification and Examination Process Upon receiving a complaint, the responsible formality officer may request clarification or additional supporting documents. In the latter case, the complainant must then submit the necessary administrative documents within 14 days of the notification date. Once the documentation is deemed complete and sufficient, the case will be formally registered. Subsequently, the DGIP will establish a verification team to handle online IP violations, which will include the Civil Servant Investigator (PPNS), the Ministry of Communication and Digital Affairs, experts with relevant expertise in IP, and representatives from related associations such as AVISI (Indonesian Video Streaming Association). After examining the report, the team will prepare the Minutes
Read More
June 30, 2026
Customs recordation is an enforcement mechanism in Myanmar that enables intellectual property (IP) rights holders to seek prevention of the cross-border movement of infringing goods. The enactment of Myanmar’s IP laws in 2019 has enabled customs recordation for registered marks and copyrights under the Trademark Law 2019 and the Copyright Law 2019. By contrast, the Patent Law 2019 and the Industrial Design Law 2019 do not provide a practical framework for customs recordation, and accordingly such rights are not subject to the customs recordation regime. Under the Trademark Law 2019, rights holders may apply for customs recordation and may also ask the Customs Department to suspend the release of goods suspected of bearing counterfeit marks. Likewise, the Copyright Law 2019 allows for customs intervention in relation to pirated works. These provisions reflect Myanmar’s gradual alignment with international standards on border measures, although the implementation framework remains at a relatively early stage of development. Customs Recordation Pursuant to the Trademark Law 2019 and the Copyright Law 2019, the relevant authorities have issued customs rules concerning the protection of registered marks and copyrights. In practice, the process generally begins with the submission of an application to the Customs Department together with supporting documentation. This typically includes proof of registration in Myanmar; details of the rights holder, applicant, and any authorized representative; and a comprehensive description of the genuine goods. Product identification materials—such as photographs, packaging samples, and distinguishing features—are particularly important in helping customs officers identify suspected infringing goods. A recordation remains valid for two years from the date of approval. It may be renewed for additional two-year terms, provided that the renewal application is filed within the thirty days prior to expiry for marks and up to thirty days in advance of the expiry date for copyrights, in accordance with
Read More