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 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