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

November 24, 2015

Licensing Facilitation Act: Enhancing Patent and Trademark Registration Procedures

Subscribe to Updates
Informed Counsel

The Licensing Facilitation Act B.E. 2558 (2015) (LFA), implemented on July 21, 2015, requires government authorities that register and/or grant licenses—such as the Department of Intellectual Property (DIP)—to publish public manuals disclosing the rules, procedures, requirements, costs, and periods of time that relate to granting the licenses. The rationale behind the LFA is to expedite registration procedures with government authorities across Thailand.

Under the LFA, the DIP has published 33 public manuals to date, issued by five offices, including public manuals related to patent registration, international applications under the Patent Cooperation Treaty, patent design registration, and trademark registration. The public manuals specify the relevant laws, list all of the required steps, and estimate timelines and workflow, which the laws do not provide.

This article presents an overview of the important changes introduced by the LFA regarding timelines of patents, design patents, petty patents, and trademark registrations procedures.

Patents

The total time to process a patent registration from filing to grant is within 55 months, which includes 12.5 months from the patent application to publication, 38.5 months for substantive examination, and 20 days to grant and issue a patent letter.

One significant change introduced by the LFA relates to the DIP’s patent registration procedure, and specifically, the deadline to submit formal documents. Prior to July 21, 2015, a patent application had to be filed with certain formal documents, including a power of attorney, and if applicable, a deed of assignment and a statement of the applicant’s right to apply for a patent.

If these formal documents were not submitted with the patent application, then a request for a 90-day extension, counted from the Thai filing date, was required to file the patent application. In addition, two further extension requests were previously available—90 days and then 30 days—meaning that 210 days were provided to file the requisite documents.

From July 21, 2015, onward, if the formal documents are not filed at the same time as the patent application, they must be submitted within the non-extendable deadline of 90 days from the date of filing the application with the DIP. Failure to comply will result in the application being deemed abandoned.

There are exceptions in which the submission deadlines remain unchanged, and they apply to the submission deadline of the priority document, if applicable, which is still 16 months from the first filing date of the base application; and the deadline to submit a complete Thai translation of the specification, which is still 90 days from the Thai filing date. All of these deadlines are non-extendable.

A summary of relevant changes to the deadlines is set out below.

Patent Design

The total time to process a patent design registration from filing to grant is within 15 months, which includes 8 months and 2 days from the patent design application to publication, 6 months to conduct a substantive examination, and 2 days to grant and issue a patent design letter.

Petty Patent

The total time to process a petty patent registration from filing to grant is within three months, which excludes the publication period of 12 months after grant for an interested person to file a request for substantive examination of the petty patent.

Trademark Registration

The total time to register a trademark is 16 months, which includes 11 months to examine the registrability of an applied-for mark, 3 months to publish a mark, and 30 days to grant and issue a registration certificate.

Others

The LFA has also amended and established other timelines that relate to trademark and patent registration information, assignment of trademark and patent rights, patent and trademark license registration, renewal of trademark registration, and annuity payment, among others.

A summary of the important timelines to register intellectual property rights is shown below.

Under Section 10 of the LFA, the relevant government authority must complete the registration of these intellectual property rights within the timelines stated in the public manuals. If the authority cannot complete the registration within the timelines, it must notify each applicant in writing every seven days of the reason for the delay in granting the registration. A copy of this written notification must be submitted to the Public Section Development Committee.

The LFA’s new public manuals, procedures, and timelines should provide impetus for government authorities that register and/or grant licenses to hasten Thailand’s patent and trademark registration procedures. If they are able to closely observe and meet the timelines, Thailand will bolster its competitiveness, and strengthen its image as a reliable and transparent jurisdiction for intellectual property registration.

Download Full Article
Related Professionals

Practices

Intellectual Property

Location

RELATED INSIGHTS​ 

September 30, 2026
Packaging is a valuable commercial asset that helps consumers identify and distinguish products through their shape, colors, graphics, labels, and overall presentation. Obtaining legal protections for these assets is thus an important step. Businesses entering into or operating in the Myanmar market should assess whether trademark protection, industrial design protection, or both provide the strongest IP strategy for these features. The country’s Intellectual Property Department (IPD) under the Ministry of Commerce now administers trademark and industrial design registrations since Myanmar’s modernization of its intellectual property framework through the enactment of four key IP laws in 2019. Trademark Protection for Packaging Under the Trademark Law 2019, a “mark” is any visually perceptible sign, including words, names, letters, numerals, figurative elements, color combinations, or combinations of these signs, capable of distinguishing one undertaking’s goods or services from another’s. Trademark protection may therefore extend to certain elements of product packaging that function as source identifiers. Depending on their presentation and distinctiveness, packaging elements such as brand names, logos, labels, configurations, color combinations, and three-dimensional (3D) shapes may qualify for trademark protection. However, under the current practice of the IPD and its available examination guidelines, the packaging and  trade dress (including product get-up) are not expressly recognized as separate registrable subject matter in Myanmar. Under the Trademark Law 2019, trademark infringement—including unauthorized use of a registered mark on packaging—may give rise to civil remedies, including injunctions and damages, as well as criminal penalties. A 3D mark may protect packaging shape or configuration if it has acquired distinctiveness through use and consumers associate it with the relevant products. However, a shape dictated by a functional or technical purpose is ineligible for registration. Registration of a 3D mark may be renewed indefinitely for successive ten-year periods, subject to compliance with renewal requirements. Industrial Design Protection
Read More
September 30, 2026
Under Thailand’s Patent Act B.E. 2522 (1979), any person may raise the invalidity of a patent as a matter of defense. However, the right to initiate court proceedings to cancel a patent is reserved exclusively for an “interested person” or the public prosecutor. This distinction between merely challenging validity and initiating judicial revocation proceedings has given rise to a significant body of Supreme Court (Dika) jurisprudence interpreting who qualifies as an “interested person” under the Patent Act. Statutory Framework Section 54 of the Patent Act provides that any invention patent granted not in compliance with the patentability requirements will be invalid, and that a petition to cancel such a patent may be submitted to the court by any “interested person” or the public prosecutor. Section 64 mirrors this provision for design patents, and section 65 novies extends the same framework to petty patents. However, none of these provisions defines the term “interested person,” leaving its interpretation to the courts. Supreme Court Interpretation The Thai Supreme Court has developed a consistent body of case law establishing that an “interested person” must be someone directly affected by the existence of the patent—not simply any member of the public. In 1989, the court found (Dika No. 2670/2532) that a party whose intended use of the patented technology was still in a preparatory stage—before actual manufacturing had commenced—did not qualify as an interested person. However, in 2009 the Supreme Court further elaborated  (Dika No. 2906/2552) that an interested party is one whose rights to utilize the invention are restricted by virtue of the patent, such as a manufacturer or producer whose operations are directly impacted by the patentee’s exclusive rights. In the 2008 case of T.M. Grating Steel Co., Ltd. v. Billion Mass Industry Co., Ltd. (Dika No. 974/2551), where the plaintiff had
Read More
September 24, 2026
Vietnam is implementing and developing a broad package of regulatory reforms that could reshape how IP, data, digital platforms, and product authenticity are regulated and enforced. Several of the key measures have been led by the Ministry of Public Security in its legislative and administrative capacity, as part of a broader government effort. The core reform package consists of four key legal instruments: proposed amendments to the Criminal Code, a proposed new Data Security Law, a draft Decree on Product Identification, Authentication and Traceability, and the newly enacted Decree No. 330/2026/ND-CP. These instruments include rules on criminal enforcement, data security, electronic identification, product identification and traceability, administrative violations, and cybersecurity sanctions. Combined, these measures will affect copyright enforcement, industrial property rights, trade secrets, AI training data, product provenance, online takedowns, valuation of counterfeit goods and electronic evidence. It is worth noting that, in addition to strengthening criminal penalties for IP crimes, Vietnam’s emerging regulatory framework increasingly treats infringement, data misuse, product authentication, and platform-enabled violations as interconnected regulatory and enforcement challenges. For rights holders and foreign investors, this could mean stronger tools against counterfeiting and online infringement, but also more compliance obligations around data, traceability, AI, platform controls and government-facing reporting. Expansion of Criminal IP Enforcement Proposed amendments to Article 225 of the Criminal Code would expand criminal copyright exposure beyond reproduction and distribution to cover large-scale commercial public performance and online communication of works, phonograms and video recordings. This is important because piracy is increasingly about streaming, unauthorized communication, and platform access models rather than physical copying. Aggravated copyright infringement could be subject to up to 10 years in prison for individuals and fines of up to VND 6 billion (about USD 228,300) for commercial legal entities. The amended Article 226 would expand criminal industrial property liability beyond
Read More
September 21, 2026
Thailand’s first-to-file trademark system has a serious vulnerability: it lacks both an explicit mechanism for refusing bad-faith registrations and any means of invalidating them in court after the five-year limitation period has expired. While brand owners worldwide confront trademark squatting, Thailand’s statutory silence stands out, particularly in light of AIPPI’s 2017 Resolution Q249, which recommended that every jurisdiction provide clear tools to address bad faith at all stages of the trademark lifecycle. Nearly a decade later, Thailand has yet to act. This article proposes a concrete reform blueprint, drawing on the legislative models of China, the United Kingdom, and the European Union. The Statutory Gap Under the Thai Trademark Act B.E. 2534, no provision expressly authorizes examiners to reject an application on grounds of bad faith. Section 8(10) addresses well-known marks but offers no relief where the targeted mark lacks well-known status. Practitioners have resorted to Section 8(9)—which bars marks “contrary to public order, morality, or public policy”—as a workaround. However, this provision was designed to address the characteristics of the mark itself, not the applicant’s intent. Thai Supreme Court decisions have split on whether it can reach bad-faith conduct, creating persistent legal uncertainty. The gap extends beyond examination. Civil actions to cancel a bad-faith registration must be brought within five years—a deadline that frequently expires before foreign brand owners discover the squatted mark. Cancellation through the Board of Trademarks remains available but is slow, costly, and subject to court appeal, leaving bad-faith registrations in force during protracted proceedings. The system effectively rewards squatters and penalizes legitimate owners. Lessons from International Best Practices Several major jurisdictions have already closed this gap. China’s 2019 amendment to Article 4 of the Trademark Law introduced an absolute ground for refusal: “bad faith trademark applications without intent to use shall be rejected.” Bad
Read More