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

December 3, 2014

Update on Thailand’s Intellectual Property Regime

Subscribe to Updates
Informed Counsel

Subsequent to the installation of a new government in Thailand on September 15, 2014, a number of important updates have been made to the country’s intellectual property (IP) regime. Amidst the changes, General Chatchai Sarikalya, Commerce Minister, and Ms. Apiradee Tantraporn, Deputy Commerce Minister, were promoted and designated to take charge of the Ministry of Commerce, and thus, made responsible for directing the Department of Intellectual Property (DIP)—one of several departments within the Ministry. In addition, after a one-year vacancy, the DIP has appointed a new Director General, Ms. Malee Choklumlert, who came into office on October 1, 2014.

The DIP’s Backlog

Of the many policies shouldered by the new Director General, perhaps the most notable is her mandate to urgently rectify the protracted periods of pendency for IP registration which have beset the DIP for numerous years. Expediting the time spent on registering trademarks, designs, patents, and copyright is to be implemented as soon as possible by trademark registrars, patent examiners, and other relevant DIP officers.

A plan is in place to clear the current backlog of trademark and patent design applications by the first quarter of 2015. Recordals of copyright are set to be completed within a few days’ time. For the backlog related to the granting of patents, the new Director General has recognized that it will take a relatively longer period of time to clear, due to the inherently complicated nature of patents and the low number of examiners—currently, there are only 41 examiners responsible for handling the more than 20,000 pending applications. In order to cope with this problem, the Director General has requested that more patent examiners be recruited, and she has thoroughly discussed the issue with the current patent examiners.

We are pleased to say that there have already been early signs of improvement since the new Director General took office.

Amendment of Intellectual Property Laws

Among the various IP laws that have undergone revisions—including the Copyright Act, Trademark Act, Trade Secret Act, draft of the Anti-Camcorder Act, Computer Crime Act, Patent Act, and the draft of the Landlord Liability Act—progress has been most notable for the following three IP laws:

  • Copyright Act: Two sets of amendments to the Copyright Act were approved by the National Legislative Assembly (NLA) in November 2014 and are now awaiting the King’s signature to be effective. The first set of amendments relate to copyright offenses, penalties for copyright infringement, and exemptions from copyright infringement for disabled people. The second set consists of a framework to account for technology changes, Rights Management Information, and Technological Protection Measures.
  • Trademark Act: Two sets of amendments to the Trademark Act are currently under review by the Cabinet. Upon passing this review, they will further proceed for consideration by the NLA. The first amendment provides additional mark protection for sounds and smells, allows multiple class applications, and provides for a grace period. The second amendment allows Thailand to become a member of the Madrid Protocol and to implement the Madrid System’s procedures and requirements. The original plan for Thailand to become a member of the Madrid Protocol has not changed. 
  • Trade Secret Act: Amendments to the Trade Secret Act were approved by the NLA in November 2014 and now await the King’s signature to have effect. The main amendments relate to the Trade Secrets Board’s composition, qualifications, terms of office, causes to vacate the position, methods to conduct meetings, and cancellations of prohibited conditions of being a Trade Secret Board member.

This progress is a good sign that Thailand is on track and ready to move forward into the ASEAN Economic Community. Any further updates on IP laws and practice in Thailand will continue to be reported in our future editions of Informed Counsel.

Download Full Article
Related Professionals

Practices

Intellectual Property

Location

RELATED INSIGHTS​ 

August 6, 2026
Introduction: A Trademark Paradox in Sustainable Packaging Walk into any Thai supermarket, and the label-free water bottle is no longer a novelty. Thailand’s packaging market, valued at approximately USD 15.68 billion in 2025, is shifting toward minimalist, plastic-light designs as ESG pressures reshape how brands present their products. The country generated roughly 5.68 million tons of plastic waste in 2021, with a recycling rate of only 19 percent, and regulators are now considering rules that would allow label-free bottled water relying on embossing, laser printing, or QR codes instead of wrap-around labels. As packaging itself becomes the brand identifier, a paradox emerges: designs built to say the least often struggle hardest for protection under Thai intellectual property law. The Trademark Barrier: When Shape Is Not Enough Section 7, paragraph 2(10) of the Thai Trademark Act deems a shape distinctive only if it is not the natural form of the goods, is not necessary to achieve a technical result, and does not add value to the goods. The Department of Intellectual Property’s 2022 examination guidelines apply this test conservatively, as the following examples illustrate. A plain water bottle relying on subtle contours to signal its brand is typically read as just another bottle, not a source identifier. Acquired distinctiveness offers a theoretical escape route, but it demands extensive evidence of sales, advertising, and consumer recognition—an especially heavy burden for new entrants whose minimalist packaging has not yet achieved market prominence. The result is a structural bias against precisely the design innovation that sustainability goals are meant to encourage. Design Patents: A Partial, Imperfect Substitute Design patent protection, covering a product’s shape, configuration, or ornamentation, appears to offer an alternative route. In practice, it is constrained by the same forces driving the minimalist trend. Because many brands converge on similar solutions—clear
Read More
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 on the Chambers and Partners website.
Read More