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 31, 2011

Damages Awards Increasing in Thai IP Cases

Subscribe to Updates
Informed Counsel

In pursuing civil litigation in court, most IP owners will first and foremost seek an injunction against any infringing activities. In addition, IP owners will often demand adequate damages as compensation for the irreparable harm suffered due to the infringement of their intellectual property rights. Most IP owners typically seek damages in an amount that will sufficiently cover lost revenue and sales so that, financially, the IP owner is returned to the same position as if the infringement had not occurred.

In many cases, however, the amount of damages awarded by the Thai Intellectual Property and International Trade Court (IP&IT Court) may be significantly lower than the actual injury or losses sustained by the IP owner. Ever since the IP&IT Court’s establishment in 1997, these limited damages awards have proved to be an obstacle and a strong deterrent for IP owners considering litigation. However, IP owners have new reason for optimism in this area, as several recent decisions have provided large damages awards to plaintiffs.

Assessing Damages

IP owners have the fundamental right to bring claims against infringers who knowingly engage in an infringing activity. The right to bring a civil action against an infringer is outlined in Part 5 of the Civil and Commercial Code (CCC) regarding wrongful acts (similar to tort law in other jurisdictions).

In particular, Section 438 of the CCC provides an essential guideline for the court to estimate the amount of damages, as pursued in the case, by making such awards based on the actual amount of damages suffered by the infringed party. This means that the damages that are awarded are a direct reflection of the infringement, which must be proven by providing clear-cut evidence.

It must be noted, however, that the law does not provide fixed criteria regarding methods for assessing and calculating damages. Therefore, assessment of damages is typically left to the sole discretion of the court. According to Section 438, the court is allowed to evaluate the “circumstances and the gravity of the wrongful act” and determine the damages accordingly.

Rationales for Rejection

In rejecting requests for compensation, the court has cited a number of rationales, including the following:

  1. The amount of compensation, as claimed, is found to be based on the future assumptions of the plaintiff.
  2. There is insufficient evidence to demonstrate the actual damages as claimed.
  3. The legal fees, as claimed, are found to be excessive for the necessary enforcement of the plaintiff’s rights.

In putting forward these explanations, the Thai IP&IT Court, as of today, has never specifically clarified the extent of the evidence that is required to prove actual damages or to prove the expenses incurred by the IP owner during the case.

Burden and Difficulties

The IP owner, as the plaintiff, is required to undertake a virtually impossible task of demonstrating all the potential causes for its lost sales, other than through the conduct of the infringer. This requires the owner to provide clear-cut evidence to demonstrate the exact amount of damages.

This requirement can become even more onerous because, in general, an infringer’s profits cannot be used as a benchmark for awarding damages in a Thai court. With respect to lawyer’s fees, Thai civil procedure law restricts the maximum rate that can be fixed by the court to 5 percent of the claim amount.

All of this presents a challenge for infringed IP owners who wish to successfully pursue litigation through the courts, as a means to recovering monetary damages. However, the Thai IP&IT Court has recently shown encouraging signs of changing its practice through the exercise of its sole discretion.

Recent Trend Favoring IP Owners

Thai law provides sole discretion and broad criteria for the court to assess the amount of monetary damages on a case-by-case basis. This approach is actually encouraging for IP owners, as evidenced by some recent cases in which the court provided damages awards favorable to IP owners.

Copyright Infringement

In February 2008, the Supreme Court concluded a long legal battle between Tsuburaya Productions of Japan and Tsuburaya Chaiyo Co., Ltd., a Thai company, by awarding one of the highest payouts for damages ever seen in a copyright case in Thailand. The case involved the rightful ownership of copyright over the artistic works of a famous superhero character, Ultraman. The Japanese company won the case, and the Thai company was ordered to pay THB 10.7 million (about USD 358,270) in compensation, along with interest of 7.5 percent per year, from the date of filing the case (December 1997) until the total amount has been fully paid. [Supreme Court Judgment No.7457/2550 (2007)]

The assessment of the total damages awarded in this case was derived from the numerous infringement activities of the Thai company. In particular, the Thai company acted as the real copyright owner of the Ultraman character for a period of several years, heavily marketing its products in many provinces in Thailand and licensing the Ultraman copyright works to other companies without the authorization of the Japanese company.

Infringement and Cancellation of Trademarks

In February 2011, the IP&IT Court announced a judgment in favor of our client, an Italian fashion brand that was established by twin Canadian brothers. The Court ruled that the infringer’s 18 similar trademarks should be cancelled from registration based on the better rights of our clients and passing-off claims. The Court also ordered the defendants to compensate the plaintiff for the amount of THB 100,000 (about USD 3,350) per month, calculated from the date the plaintiff filed the complaint to the date the defendants withdrew their registered trademarks or the date the defendants ceased to infringe the plaintiff’s trademarks, which amounted to over THB 1 million (about USD 33,333) by the time the judgment was rendered at the IP&IT Court as the court of first instance. [IP&IT Court Judgment Red Case No. TorPor9/2554 (2011)]

This trademark case is one of a number of recent trademark infringement cases in which the IP&IT Court has awarded plaintiffs damages of THB 100,000 per month, calculated from the date the complaint was filed.

Misappropriation of Trade Secrets

In April 2011, one of our clients won a historic judgment in a case against its former Thai employees. These employees had misappropriated our client’s valuable trade secrets in relation to magnetic powder technology.

The IP&IT Court awarded an injunction against the use and disclosure of the plaintiff’s trade secret technologies, including machines, processes, and related information. The plaintiff received substantial damages in the amount of THB 20 million (about USD 667,000), including an interest payment of 7.5 percent per year to be payable on this amount, starting from the date of the complaint until the completion of the payment. In addition, the defendants were ordered to pay the plaintiff’s legal fees in the amount of THB 100,000.

This total sum also included a penalty of THB 1 million (about USD 33,500) per month for any further infringing acts, as of the date of judgment. It was also ruled that all of the defendant’s machines, equipment, information, and products, which infringed our client’s trade secrets, would be vested with our client. The machinery has an estimated of value of more than THB 30 million (about USD 1 million). [IP&IT Court Judgment Red Case No. TorPor38/2554 (2011)]

This case has gained recognition as being one of the most exceptional IP civil litigations undertaken in Thailand, as it was the first case in which a trade secret owner has successfully enforced against trade secret misappropriation in Thailand. In addition, the damages award is also the largest amount ever provided by the IP&IT Court, with total damages of at least THB 52 million (about USD 1.7 million).

Conclusion

The structure of the Thai civil court system and the civil remedies for IP infringements have long had a reputation as being relatively weak, particularly in regard to the awarding of damages. This was due, in part, to the requirement that IP owners prove, with absolute certainty, all elements of the damages sought.

In spite of the practical difficulties involved in gauging the amount of damages necessary to adequately compensate infringed IP owners, these recent court cases show that the Thai IP&IT Court is finally revising its traditionally conservative practice of awarding low amounts. Of course, because Thailand is a civil law country, the court will not rely entirely on precedents in order to estimate damages in future cases. In the absence of specific guidelines on how to assess damages, the IP&IT Court will need to evaluate the relevant circumstances of each case and the gravity of each wrongful act, as it did in the cases described above. Nevertheless, IP owners now have a much clearer picture regarding the type of information that needs to be provided to the court in order to achieve a favorable damages award.

Download Full Article
Related Professionals

Practices

Dispute Resolution and Litigation

Intellectual Property

Location

RELATED INSIGHTS​

April 18, 2024
In-court arbitration is an alternative dispute resolution (ADR) tool provided in the Civil Procedure Code (CPC) for cases that have already been submitted to the court. Historically, in-court arbitration has not been a popular method of resolving disputes. Instead, out-of-court arbitration, as prescribed by the Thai Arbitration Act B.E. 2545 (2002), is far more utilized in practice. The popularity of out-of-court arbitration is demonstrated by the fact that presentations on arbitration in Thailand almost exclusively focus on out-of-court arbitration; in-court arbitration is rarely even a topic of discussion. This situation is partly because in-court arbitration has not been encouraged by the courts in the past. Further, it is also not common for parties to agree on arbitration clauses after a dispute arises and also after it has been submitted to the court. Instead, arbitration clauses are generally discussed and crafted during the negotiation of the contract, which will most likely provide that any dispute arising out of the contract is to be resolved by out-of-court arbitration. Nonetheless, the Thai Courts of Justice have recently started to support this in-court ADR tool as a viable option and to encourage parties to agree in-court arbitration clauses before proceeding with a case through trial. This article is not meant to assess whether in-court arbitration is preferable to either out-of-court arbitration or to having the case heard by professional judges of the Courts of Justice. Instead, the purpose of this article is to discuss certain key provisions of the CPC that parties should carefully consider before agreeing to an in-court arbitration clause. On this point, the CPC specifically states that out-of-court arbitration is prescribed by arbitration law, the Arbitration Act, which is an entirely separate piece of legislation drafted specifically to apply to out-of-court arbitration. In contrast, in-court arbitration is completely regulated by
Read More
April 17, 2024
Intellectual property rights holders pursuing legal actions in Vietnam have faced various challenges related to document formality in recent years. For example, in two different disputes at the Ho Chi Minh City Court, we have seen the judge request the claimants to re-prepare the civil dossier due to a lack of documentation proving the authorization of the signer—despite the fact that the cases had been ongoing for long time. Meanwhile, many domain names have been unable to be registered and transferred in recent months. Third-party representatives cannot handle the work as they normally would, as Vietnam’s domain name authority has required all documents to be signed by the domain name holders themselves, instead of the law firms representing them. Such demands have created unnecessary complexities and obstacles for IP holders seeking to protect their rights in Vietnam. Legal Formalities in the Court System Vietnam’s judicial landscape presents unique hurdles for IP holders to enforce their rights. One significant challenge is the requirement for the claimant’s legal representative (typically the CEO/president), as explicitly displayed on the company’s business license, to sign all documents related to a lawsuit. This requirement clashes with the operational practices of many foreign companies, where multiple individuals may have the authority to represent the company. It is extremely impractical, especially in a large multinational conglomerate, for the CEO/president to personally execute all documents and transactions. Instead, authorized staff within these organizations, such as department heads or general counsel, typically handle these tasks. In this situation, Vietnamese courts often demand additional documentation to prove the officers’ authority, necessitating specific authorization documents that may not always be readily available. The courts sometimes remain unconvinced by declarations from the CEO/president affirming the authorization of these officers, and despite such assurances, they may still demand tangible proof of authorization, adding
Read More
April 11, 2024
Costly and time-consuming litigation can cause entrepreneurs to lose a lot of money, leading to cash flow problems and even threatening their ability to continue their business operations. One alternative to these financial challenges is litigation funding. This can be an option for people intending to file a lawsuit or those being sued to address potential financial liquidity problems caused by the financial demands of litigation. Litigation funding refers to financial support provided by an unrelated third party with no interest in the dispute who agrees to fund the costs a party incurs during the dispute resolution process in exchange for a portion of any money potentially awarded to the party being funded. If the funded party loses the case, the third party (i.e., the funder) is solely responsible for the costs. Although litigation funding is available in various countries, Thailand considers it to be contrary to public order and good morals, which renders litigation funding agreements void and unenforceable. Recognition and Enforcement in Thailand There are no laws or regulations in Thailand that specifically mention litigation funding. However, the Supreme Court has consistently ruled that litigation funding is not recognized and is not legally enforceable under Thai law. These Supreme Court precedents have established that agreements to receive benefits in return for pursuing litigation in which the funding party is not involved would be an act of seeking benefit from the litigation of others. As noted above, this purpose has been viewed as contrary to public order and good morals, which results in the agreement being void and unenforceable by other Thai courts (Supreme Court Judgment No. 7014/1999). Therefore, if a litigation funding agreement were in place in a Thai dispute and the funded party won, the funding party would most likely not be legally entitled to any
Read More
April 4, 2024
On March 18, 2024, the president of the Supreme Court of Thailand announced the establishment of a specialized Technology Crime Division within the Criminal Court of Thailand. This represents a significant commitment to cybercrime within the Thai judiciary and a step forward in Thailand’s ability to investigate cybercrime. The rise in cybercrime investigations in recent years has made it increasingly difficult for Thailand’s traditional criminal courts to consider and issue enforcement orders in support of ongoing investigations in a timely manner. The new Technology Crime Division addresses this challenge. This new division has jurisdiction over cybercrime and technology-related crime, fraud or extortion using computers, and criminal offenses relating to personal data protection laws. In addition, this new division has jurisdiction over all requests from competent law enforcement officers seeking court orders under the Computer Crimes Act B.E. 2550, the Personal Data Protection Act B.E. 2562, and the Cybersecurity Act B.E. 2562. The Technology Crime Division will have trainees and judges with expertise in technology and cybercrime—not only to facilitate expert prosecution of cybercrime but also to offer critical and time-sensitive support to law enforcement investigations of alleged cybercrime. The Technology Crime Division is not yet operational. The president of the Supreme Court is expected to announce the division’s opening date in the coming months. For more details on Thailand’s measures for dealing with cybercrime, please contact Michael Ramirez at [email protected] or Piyawat Vitooraporn at [email protected].
Read More

Contact

We have seven offices in six countries
across Southeast Asia.

Contact Us

Careers

We are always seeking great people to grow
our amazing team.

Join Us

Networks

© 2023 Tilleke & Gibbins International Ltd. All rights reserved.

© 2020 Tilleke & Gibbins International Ltd. All rights reserved.

Privacy Policy

| Legal Notice