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

May 24, 2018

Case Studies of Successful IP Enforcement in Thailand in 2018

Subscribe to Updates
Informed Counsel

When encountering infringing activities, brand owners may question what options are available to them. Generally, IP enforcement options in Thailand include customs seizures, cease-and-desist letters, negotiations, mediations though the Department of Intellectual Property, and criminal and civil litigation. Each option has its advantages and disadvantages and is applicable to different situations. Options could be completely ineffectual in certain cases unless brand owners choose the right one.   

Tilleke & Gibbins’ lawyers and in-house investigation team have extensive experience and a well-established record of assisting brand owners in enforcing their rights in Thailand and Southeast Asia. This article presents a few examples of successful IP enforcement actions undertaken by our firm in early 2018 to resolve infringement of our clients’ valuable IP rights.

Customs Seizure of Counterfeit Goods in Transit

Thailand’s new Customs Act was enacted in 2017 to replace the Customs Act 1926. The new law introduces penalties for transit and transshipment of counterfeit and pirated goods, including imprisonment of up to 10 years, or a fine of up to THB 400,000, or both. The new penalties broaden the scope of protection at the nation’s borders and are very beneficial to brand owners.   

In February 2018, Tilleke & Gibbins acted in the very first case involving the seizure of counterfeit goods in transit in Thailand. Our firm was notified by officers at Laem Chabang Port Customs Bureau, who suspected that an incoming container held counterfeit goods based on information provided by an informant that suspicious goods were being imported into Thailand.

Officers inspected the container’s documents, which declared that the shipment was imported kitchenware that was being transported from China through Thailand and into Lao PDR. The customs officers proceeded to x-ray the container and noticed that the sizes of the packages in the container were quite varied, further raising their suspicions and prompting the decision to open the container.

As the final destination of the container was to be Lao PDR, officials from the Lao PDR Embassy in Thailand were invited to witness the opening of the container. Lao officials declined to send anyone to witness the opening of the container, and thus customs officers requested the vessel’s agent to be the witness. Upon opening the container, it was found that most of the goods contained inside were potential counterfeits, with officers seizing more than 100,000 items, including apparel, shoes, handbags, electronic appliances, auto parts, and accessories.

With the new stringent measures set out by the Customs Act of 2017, customs officers are now more empowered to support IP enforcement to suppress the transportation of counterfeit and pirated goods in all possible ways, including in transit and transshipment.

Raid Actions against Counterfeit Products

Our client, a well-known Thai food manufacturer and distributor, recently discovered that potentially unsafe counterfeit foods were being sold across many provinces in Thailand. Our client thus entrusted Tilleke & Gibbins with an anticounterfeiting project, with the aim to entirely eliminate the counterfeit products in the market to protect Thai consumers.

In April 2018, we provided our client with investigation services conducted by our in-house investigation team, advised on strategic planning and the most feasible legal options, and coordinated with the police at the Economic Crime Suppression Division to conduct raid actions against wholesale and retail shops selling the counterfeit foods.

In just a few months, we successfully conducted three raid actions and seized more than 1,400 counterfeit items from infringers, creating a strong deterrent against other similar counterfeit products in the market and sending a strong message to the public that our client is not reluctant to take strong legal action against any infringers, regardless of the size of the infringers’ business, in order to protect the Thai public from risky counterfeit foods.

Amicable Settlement through Negotiations

Some people may think that threatening to initiate legal action is the only way to stop infringers from continuing their infringing activities. But many disputes can actually be amicably resolved by negotiation, which can confer many benefits to the brand owners involved.

In March 2018, our firm assisted a world-renowned Japanese electronics company in enforcing its rights against several importers and distributors of infringing products. After sending a cease-and-desist letter, we engaged with the infringers to explain the legal grounds and the purpose of us sending the letter to them. Like in many other similar cases, the infringers declared that they had not intended to infringe our client’s rights since they had no knowledge of such IP protection. Through negotiations, our team convinced the infringers to comply with all of our demands, sign a letter acknowledging our client’s rights, and agree to refrain from future infringement. The infringer also recalled all the infringing goods from their distributors and retuned nearly 200 counterfeit items to us for destruction.

By negotiating on our client’s behalf, we were able to stop the infringing activities immediately, destroy the infringing products, and obtain a guarantee for future compliance through a letter of undertaking rather than initiating potentially costly and time-consuming litigation in court. Through negotiations, it is also possible to obtain disclosure of the source of counterfeit products to take further legal action against the manufacturer, or even request compensation for damages.

Thai laws provide numerous tools for brand owners to protect and enforce their rights, with laws regularly amended to strengthen measures against infringing activities, such as the new Customs Act 2017. With the range of options available, it is important for brand owners to select the most suitable approach for their specific circumstances.

Download Full Article
Related Professionals

Practices

Intellectual Property

Location

RELATED INSIGHTS​ 

September 14, 2026
Myanmar’s first-to-file trademark registration regime under the Trademark Law 2019—which became fully operational in April 2023—provides mark owners with enhanced legal protection compared with the country’s former system. Correspondingly, the current system imposes more rigorous statutory requirements for obtaining, maintaining, and enforcing rights in marks. In this first-to-file trademark registration system, however, evidence of use remains particularly significant, as it may establish acquired distinctiveness, support a claim that a mark is well-known, and strengthen the owner’s position in both registration and enforcement proceedings. Accordingly, it can be said that this framework is underpinned by three key concepts: distinctiveness, well-known status, and, importantly, use of the trademark. Trademark Distinctiveness Under the Trademark Law, signs that lack distinctiveness are generally ineligible for mark protection. These signs include generic terms, basic shapes, unstylized single letters or numerals, and signs that merely describe the kind, quality, quantity, intended purpose, value, geographical origin, production time, or other characteristics of the relevant goods or services. However, a mark that would otherwise be refused on distinctiveness or descriptiveness grounds may be registrable if it has acquired distinctiveness through its use prior to the filing date. To show this, the applicant must demonstrate that the mark became distinctive to relevant consumers through continuous, exclusive, and good-faith use in trade within Myanmar. The burden of proving acquired distinctiveness rests with the mark owner. Accordingly, sufficient evidence demonstrating both use of the mark and the level of consumer recognition attained should be prepared in advance. Well-Known Mark Criteria Myanmar’s Trademark Rules, which govern the substantive examination of mark registration applications, establish criteria for determining well-known marks, aligned with international standards. Where an applicant claims well-known status—whether to overcome a refusal on relative grounds or to oppose a third party’s registration—the registrar will assess the claim based on the following
Read More
September 14, 2026
On August 23, 2026, Vietnam’s National Assembly passed Law No. 11/2026/QH16, amending the country’s Customs Law with effect from March 1, 2027. The amendments represent a substantial reform of Vietnam’s customs-based intellectual property enforcement regime. The reforms come amid considerable external pressure. In its 2026 Special 301 review, the US Trade Representative (USTR) designated Vietnam a “priority foreign country,” citing widespread counterfeiting, weak border enforcement, limited ex officio customs powers, and the absence of controls over goods in transit. Vietnam’s legislative response signals a commitment to bringing its border enforcement practices into line with international expectations. For IP rights holders operating in or through Vietnam, the amended law introduces several tools that substantially strengthen enforcement options at the border. Closing the Transit Gap One of the most consequential amendments is the extension of IP-related customs enforcement to goods in transit. Previously, Vietnam’s customs regime applied IP controls only to goods being imported or exported, a gap the USTR had specifically identified as enabling infringing goods to pass through Vietnamese ports with impunity. Vietnam’s geographic position as a logistics hub for Southeast Asia means that substantial volumes of goods transit its ports and free-trade zones. Extending enforcement to cover these shipments brings Vietnam closer to the standard set by the EU’s customs enforcement regulation and addresses a longstanding concern of multinational brand owners whose goods are frequently counterfeited in the region. Strengthened Suspension and Ex Officio Powers The amended law introduces a dual-track suspension mechanism (Article 73(2)). Customs authorities will suspend clearance upon request by an IP rights holder (or authorized representative) who provides evidence of IP ownership, evidence of infringement, and a financial guarantee. Customs can now proactively suspend clearance on an ex officio basis if, during inspection and monitoring, they discover “clear grounds” to suspect that imported, exported,
Read More
September 7, 2026
Indonesia’s Constitutional Court (Mahkamah Konstitusi) has reinstated a key provision limiting pharmaceutical patent protection, signaling a renewed commitment to balancing patent rights with public access to medicines. In its ruling to Case No. 255/PUU-XXIII/2025, the court partially granted a petition for judicial review of Law No. 65 of 2024, which had amended the country’s Patent Law, and ordered the restoration of a provision that had excluded certain pharmaceutical inventions from patentability. The decision took effect immediately upon its pronouncement at the court’s plenary session on August 28, 2026. Background The petition challenged the removal of article 4(f) from Law No. 13 of 2016 concerning Patents (Patent Law), as amended by Law No. 65 of 2024. Article 4(f) had excluded from patentability certain inventions relating to new uses of known substances. The petitioners argued that removing this provision would open the door to patent protection for second medical use inventions and facilitate patent evergreening—practices that can extend exclusivity periods, delay generic market entry, and reduce public access to affordable medicines. The petitioners included several patient advocacy and public-interest organizations: the Indonesian Dialysis Patients Community Association, the Indonesian Association of Drug Abuse Victims (PKNI), the Indonesian Pulmonary Hypertension Foundation (YHPI), the Rekat Peduli Indonesia Foundation, and the Indonesian Positive Women’s Association (IPPI), along with the Indonesia for Global Justice Association and four individual petitioners. The petitioners also challenged the constitutionality of the phrase “interested party” in article 70(1) of the Patent Law, arguing that it should be construed expressly to clarify who has standing to appeal a decision to grant a patent before the Board of Patent Appeal, and to allow a broader range of parties—such as patent holders, licensees, consumer organizations, prosecutors, aggrieved third parties, and others who may suffer direct or indirect harm from the grant of a patent—to
Read More
September 2, 2026
Thailand and China have a longstanding and significant trade relationship, which increasingly extends to e-commerce and digitally enabled supply chains. While these channels create new opportunities for businesses to reach consumers across borders, their growth also brings greater exposure to intellectual property (IP) infringement across jurisdictions and online platforms. Effective cooperation between the two countries’ enforcement authorities has therefore become increasingly important. To strengthen cooperation in this area, Thailand and China signed a memorandum of understanding (MOU) on IP enforcement in Beijing on July 20, 2026, during the Thai prime minister’s official visit to China. Officially titled “Memorandum of Understanding Between the State Administration for Market Regulation of the People’s Republic of China and the Ministry of Commerce of the Kingdom of Thailand on Cooperation in the Field of Intellectual Property Enforcement,” the MOU forms part of a broader bilateral agenda covering industrial and supply chains, participation by micro, small, and medium-sized enterprises (MSMEs), cooperation associated with the ASEAN–China Free Trade Area 3.0, and progress on the registration of Thai geographical indications in China. The MOU establishes a bilateral framework for cooperation and coordination in five broad areas: Strengthening dialogue in IP enforcement; Enhancing information sharing; Facilitating the enforcement of IP rights in cases arising in the parties’ domestic markets and on online platforms, in accordance with their respective domestic laws; Promoting cooperation in IP enforcement training and human resource development; and Undertaking other cooperation activities agreed upon by both sides. The Department of Intellectual Property (DIP) will serve as the principal coordinating agency for Thailand, while the Bureau of Law Enforcement and Inspection in China’s State Administration for Market Regulation (SAMR) will serve in that role for China. The framework is particularly relevant to the growth of e-commerce, as it covers infringement in the domestic markets and on
Read More