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

August 21, 2017

Updates to Trademark and Patent Legal Framework in Thailand

Subscribe to Updates
Informed Counsel

The intellectual property (IP) legal framework in Thailand is constantly evolving to enhance IP registration and protection in the nation, and to account for important changes in the global IP landscape. In the second half of 2017, Thailand will likely see a few legal developments in IP, which could have important implications for brand owners.

Implementation of Madrid Protocol

Thailand’s amended Trademark Act, which came into force on July 28, 2016, introduces a new chapter  on trademark registration of international trademarks, providing the legal foundation for the country to become a member of the Madrid Protocol.

Building on this legal groundwork, the Thai Ministry of Foreign Affairs submitted its instrument of accession to the Madrid Protocol with the World Intellectual Property Organization (WIPO) on August 7, 2017, making Thailand the 99th contracting state under the Madrid System. The protocol will take effect in Thailand on November 7, 2017, 90 days after the submission date, and will enable brand owners in the country to file a single international application and pay one set of fees to protect their marks in 114 territories of 98 other contracting states.

Proposed Amendments to the Patent Act

Various proposed amendments to the Patent Act in Thailand have been the subject of numerous discussions since 2009 and are still in the process of being studied and debated in 2017.

The patent amendments aim to solve and prevent backlogs and long delays in granting patents in Thailand, reduce the periods of pendency for patent registration, and ensure that the duration to grant a patent complies with the time frame of 55 months set by the Licensing Facilitation Act.

According to the latest draft of the patent bill, a number of interesting amendments are being considered, as follows:

1. Introducing a two-step publication process in the patent system:

1.1 The first publication of a patent application will be made within 18 months of the filing date (no opposition can be filed at this stage).
1.2 A second publication will be ordered after the substantive examination, allowing the public to file an opposition against a patent application.
1.3 An official publication fee will be collected at the time that the application is first filed, well before the first publication date. No official fee is required for the second publication.

2. Reducing the time frame for filing a request for substantive examination from five years to three years.

3. Setting the opposition period to be 90 days from the second publication date of the application.

4. Introducing a Trial Committee for Oppositions.

5. Allowing Third-Party Observations to ongoing proceedings before the Department of Intellectual Property’s Patent Office.  

6. Changing from compulsory registration of a patent license agreement to a system of recordation of patent license agreements.

7. Increasing the time frame for extension requests for annuity payments from 120 days with a 30% surcharge to 180 days with a 30% surcharge.

8. Extending the deadline to file a revocation petition with the Board of Patents from 60 days to 180 days.

9. Authorizing the Board of Patents to grant an extension for annuity payments, with a 50% surcharge.

10. Increasing the number of patent examiners tasked with approving the recordation of license agreements from one person to three to five persons. 

11. Revising procedures for recordation of patent license agreements and introducing new procedures for issuing compulsory licenses in line with the World Trade Organization’s Agreement on Trade-Related Aspects of Intellectual Property Rights (TRIPS Agreement).

Trademark owners, especially those with international portfolios, are encouraged to remain updated on the changes that will be brought about when the Madrid Protocol takes effect in Thailand. Meanwhile, patent owners should study the latest draft amendments of the Patent Act to be ready to comply with requirements in the near future, when the bill becomes law.

Download Full Article
Related Professionals

Practices

Intellectual Property

Location

RELATED INSIGHTS​ 

August 20, 2026
As part of its membership in Lex Mundi, Tilleke & Gibbins has released the latest edition of its Guide to Doing Business in Thailand, providing an overview of the legal, regulatory, and commercial considerations for companies establishing or expanding operations in Thailand. The 2026 edition offers practical insight into the country’s business environment, investment framework, and operational requirements. The guide covers a wide range of topics relevant to foreign and domestic investors, including: Investment incentives and promotion schemes Financial facilities and banking regulations Exchange controls and money transfers Import and export regulations Business structures and incorporation options Requirements for establishing a business Operational and compliance considerations Business cessation and insolvency procedures Employment and labor laws Taxation Immigration and visa requirements Prepared by Tilleke & Gibbins lawyers across multiple practice areas, the publication outlines key aspects of doing business in Thailand, including foreign investment restrictions, regulatory compliance obligations, corporate structures, employment requirements, and recent legal and economic developments affecting investors. The publication forms part of Lex Mundi’s Country Guides series, a global collection of jurisdiction-specific reference materials prepared by member firms around the world. Together, these guides help companies evaluate opportunities, compare regulatory environments, and plan international business activities across multiple markets. The full Guide to Doing Business in Thailand 2026 is available through the button below.
Read More
August 13, 2026
Modern agricultural machinery is no longer purely mechanical but instead technology dependent. Modern tractors, harvesters, and other farm equipment increasingly incorporate embedded software, electronic control units, sensors, and digital diagnostic systems. While such technologies enhance efficiency, productivity, and precision farming, they also affect the manner of equipment repair and maintenance. As a result, farmers and independent repair providers may have little practical choice but to rely on authorized dealers, even for routine maintenance and repairs. Section 36 of Thailand’s Patent Act reflects the principle that the authorized sale of a patented invention usually exhausts the exclusive right of the patent owner over the specific product. This means that upon legal sale of the patented product, it can typically be used or resold without further authorization from the patent holder. This principle is relatively straightforward when applied to traditional mechanical equipment. Ownership of a machine ordinarily carries with it the practical ability to diagnose faults, replace worn parts, and restore the equipment to working order. Modern agricultural machinery, however, increasingly depends on embedded software, proprietary diagnostic systems, firmware updates, and other digital resources that may remain under the control of the manufacturer or patent holder. This tension lies within the “right to repair” debate. In the United States, on July 8, 2026, the Federal Trade Commission and five states announced a settlement with Deere & Company resolving allegations that Deere had unlawfully restricted farmers’ and independent repair providers’ ability to repair their equipment. Under the terms of the settlement, for the next ten years, Deere must provide repair resources, including software capabilities, on terms equivalent to those provided to authorized dealers. The Deere settlement highlights that the nature of ownership is changing, but legal concepts have not kept pace. Traditional patent-law concepts, including patent exhaustion, were developed with physical products
Read More
August 10, 2026
Thailand has finalized its social media KYC (“know your customer”) rules under Notification of the Electronic Transactions Commission on Measures to Prevent Technological Crimes for Social Media Service Providers (No. 2), which was published in the Government Gazette on May 5, 2026, and will take effect on November 1, 2026. While an early draft of the notification proposed requiring social media platforms to arrange identification of every user account, the final notification is significantly more targeted, focusing on paid online advertising and advertiser identity verification. Though the regulatory initiative primarily aims to combat online fraud and technology-related crimes, it also has important consequences for intellectual property enforcement, because the verified platform records that will be generated under the new requirements can help IP rights holders to identify anonymous online infringers. Key Regulatory Mandates The notification requires social media service providers to verify the identity of advertisers before their paid advertisements are published and disseminated in Thailand through social media, regardless of whether the advertising fees come from the advertisers or third parties. Verification of an advertiser is valid for one year, after which verification would have to be performed again before the platform could publish additional paid advertisements from the advertiser. Permitted verification methods are specified under the notification. A platform may verify an advertiser by checking identity evidence and confirming the connection between the advertiser and that identity evidence, with the notification giving facial comparison against certain government-issued identity documents as an example. Alternatively, platforms may verify advertisers through a digital identity verification and authentication system with an identity-proofing assurance level not lower than the level prescribed by Thailand’s Electronic Transactions Commission. The notification further requires platforms to retain only the advertiser’s information necessary to identify the advertiser, beginning from the start of the advertising activity and for
Read More
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