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​ 

June 24, 2026
Patent enablement requirements are provided under Article 102 of Vietnam’s Law on Intellectual Property (IP Law). In particular, a patent specification must “fully and clearly disclose the nature of the invention to such an extent that, based on the specification, a person having ordinary skill in the relevant art can implement the invention.” In pharmaceutical and biotechnology patents, this requirement is more complicated and subject to more rigorous assessment. The Patent Examination Guidelines (Guidelines) of the Intellectual Property Office of Vietnam (IP Office) were amended in March 2026 to introduce Annexes III and IV for the pharmaceutical and biotechnology sectors, in which Annex III provides detailed guidelines on the assessment of specification requirements. These amendments were made under a project for strengthening capacity in industrial property examination between the Japan International Cooperation Agency (JICA) and the IP Office. Annex III provides detailed instructions on how examiners assess enablement in a pharmaceutical or biotechnology application, and offers examples of acceptable and unacceptable descriptions with regard to the enablement aspect. Enablement Requirements in Pharma and Biotech Patents Article 12.7 of Circular 10/2026/TT-BKHCN (Circular 10) adds to the requirements of Article 102 of the IP Law that the description must demonstrate the novelty, inventive step, and industrial applicability of the technical solution. For pharmaceutical composition subject matters, Article 12.9 of Circular 10 sets out that the description must present the results of clinical trials and/or the pharmacological effects of the claimed pharmaceutical composition, and must include at least the following information: Substance/mixture used. Testing method (system) employed. Information on the test results. Correlation between the pharmacological effects obtained from the tests and the application of the pharmaceutical product in the prevention, diagnosis, and treatment of diseases. The Guidelines note that pharmacological study results should be presented in a quantified manner, and pharmacological
Read More
June 16, 2026
Since the implementation of the Trademark Law 2019 on April 1, 2023, Myanmar has operated under a modern first-to-file trademark system that brings its registration framework closer to international practice. As the new regime continues to develop in practice, applicants are increasingly required to navigate formal examination requirements, substantive objections, and procedural deadlines with greater precision. This article provides a high-level review of the trademark examination process in Myanmar, focusing on the principal stages from initial review to approval, the types of objections commonly raised by the Intellectual Property Department (IPD), and the key considerations for responding effectively. A clear understanding of these issues is essential for applicants seeking to secure registration efficiently and to mitigate avoidable delays or refusals. Examination Process: Key Stages Trademark applications filed with the IPD undergo two stages of review. Formality Examination The IPD first verifies compliance with procedural requirements, including: Correct Nice Classification Clear mark representation Accurate applicant details Clearly defined goods or services Representative details, if the application is filed by a representative Other formality requirements cover translation and transliteration of any non-English or non-Myanmar elements in the mark, color claim details, applicable disclaimers, and payment of official fees. Deficiencies result in an office action requiring correction within 30 days, which may be extended upon request. Registrability Examination The IPD also assesses registrability. A mark may be refused if it: Lacks distinctiveness Is descriptive or generic Misleads the public or violates public order/morality Contains prohibited state symbols Only compliant applications proceed to publication. Responding to Office Actions Applicants must respond within 30 days of notification from the IPD. Depending on the nature of the objection, strategies may include submitting legal arguments for distinctiveness, providing evidence of acquired distinctiveness, filing appropriate disclaimers, clarifying descriptions such as color claims, or amending the listed goods
Read More
June 15, 2026
The surge in AI development has led to a desperate demand for large, high-quality training data. However, real-world data can be expensive to collect, difficult to access, and often subject to strict privacy and regulatory constraints. Synthetic data, which consists of artificially generated records that replicate the statistical properties of real-world data without reproducing specific individuals’ information, provides an appealing solution by generating artificial datasets at scale without relying on identifiable personal information. It combines speed, cost efficiency, and regulatory compliance, making it a sensible alternative for organizations seeking to reduce risks while maintaining data utility. When properly anonymized, synthetic datasets may fall outside the scope of laws such as the EU’s General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR) or Thailand’s Personal Data Protection Act (PDPA), reducing compliance burdens while still supporting high-quality model training. However, relying on synthetic data without rigorous legal due diligence could be a strategic mistake. It replaces one set of known risks (scraping, direct privacy liability) with a new set of complex liabilities. The narrative that synthetic data is a “silver bullet” for privacy and IP compliance is dangerous and could be misleading. While synthetic data addresses data scarcity, it also introduces new legal uncertainties. Legal counsel should anticipate downstream risks arising from compromised data sources. Models trained on unlawfully obtained data may need to be decommissioned, even if their outputs appear lawful. What is synthetic data? Synthetic data refers to artificially generated information created using AI techniques such as deep learning and generative models. Instead of copying real records, it reproduces the statistical patterns and relationships found in the original dataset. Synthetic data generally falls into three categories: Fully synthetic data – Entirely new data points generated from learned patterns. The model studies the structure of the original data and produces records that resemble real-world
Read More
June 10, 2026
In March 2026, the Intellectual Property Office of Vietnam (IP Office) issued a decision refusing a trademark application after considering an opposition based primarily on copyright grounds. The outcome is noteworthy because the foreign brand owner had neither trademark registrations nor applications in Vietnam at the time the opposition was filed, and the IP Office has historically applied a stringent approach to oppositions relying on copyright. The Opposition Maurten is a well-known Swedish sports nutrition brand recognized globally for its innovative hydrogel technology, which is designed to help endurance athletes fuel more effectively without gastrointestinal discomfort. The brand’s distinctive logo is characterized by clean lines and a bold black-and-white color scheme, and has long been associated with the company’s performance products. The brand’s logo is displayed above. An identical mark was filed for registration by a Vietnamese trademark squatter. In 2023, a Vietnamese individual filed an application for registration of an identical mark (Application No. 4-2023-38668), a practice commonly observed in Vietnam as trademark squatting. The brand owner engaged Tilleke & Gibbins to assist with strategy and filing an opposition to the mark. At the time, Maurten had no trademark rights or meaningful use in Vietnam, and global marketing data showed only modest figures without any local presence. Thus, to convince the IP Office to refuse the squatter’s application, instead of relying on trademark rights or use evidence, the opposition strategy centered on the copyright protection of the logo itself, as copyright arises automatically in Vietnam upon creation of the work and does not require registration. (It is worth noting, however, that the IP Office has traditionally been cautious in accepting copyright as a basis for refusing trademark applications.) On September 24, 2024, an opposition was filed on three main grounds: confusing similarity, copyright infringement of the artistic work,
Read More