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

March 9, 2015

Thai Copyright Act Amendments: Updating the Law for the Digital Age

Subscribe to Updates
Informed Counsel

Thailand’s Copyright Act B.E. 2537 (1994) came into force on March 21, 1995. Over the course of the nearly 20 years since its passing, the Act had previously remained unchanged, devoid of any amendments, despite numerous attempts by legislators to strengthen copyright protection and modernize the law to keep up with technological changes.

One of the copyright bills recently introduced by the National Legislative Assembly (NLA) of Thailand contains broader and more advanced tools for copyright owners to tackle copyright infringement. This copyright bill proposes reforms on copyright protection and liability in relation to the protection of Rights Management Information (RMI) and Technological Protection Measures (TPM).

The NLA has now passed this bill into law, having published it in the Royal Gazette on February 5, 2015. The bill will come into force 180 days after publication. With this significant development in mind, law enforcers, legal practitioners, and copyright owners need to become familiar with what the new copyright law has in store. This article will examine the protection of RMI and TPM introduced by this copyright bill.

Copyright Infringement Exception under the First-Sale Doctrine

Section 32/1 of the amended Copyright Act explicitly recognizes the exception of copyright infringement under the first-sale doctrine. This new section stipulates that any distribution of original or copied copyrighted work—the ownership of which is lawfully acquired—does not amount to copyright infringement. This exception applies to all copyrighted works that are recognized by the Thai Copyright Act.

Exception for Temporary Reproduction in Computer Systems

With the understanding that copyrighted works sometimes need to be duplicated in order to allow a computer system to function, the amended Copyright Act provides an exception to reflect this need, similar to exceptions contained in the copyright laws of many countries. Section 32/2 stipulates that any duplication of a copyrighted work that is required to be made in order to allow a computer system to function normally shall not be deemed as an act of copyright infringement.

Preliminary Injunctive Relief for Copyright Infringement on Computer Systems

Section 32/3 of the amended Copyright Act will introduce a new injunctive measure which copyright owners can use to prevent the distribution of copyright-infringing content on the computer systems of Internet service providers. Under this section, in the event that a copyright owner has reasonable grounds to believe that a copyrighted work has been the subject of infringement on a computer system, he or she can file a motion with the competent court to request a court order be made against the service provider to stop the infringement. A “service provider,” as defined in the Act, includes any person who provides access to the Internet or any services that allow people to communicate with one another over a computer system and any person who provides computer information storage services.

When granting such an injunction, the court will specify the period of time within which the service provider must comply with the court order. After the injunction is granted, the copyright owner is obliged to initiate a lawsuit against the infringer within the period of time ordered by the court for the service provider to take down the infringing content. If the service provider is not the person who controls, initiates, or orders the infringing act to be carried out in the computer system, he or she will be exempt from liability for copyright infringement upon compliance with the court order, and he or she cannot be held liable for any damage incurred by his or her action carried out under the order.

Protection of Performer’s Moral Rights

The amended Copyright Act protects the moral rights of performers, similar to those of creators of copyrighted works, under Section 18. Under the new Section 51/1, a performer is entitled to identify himself or herself as a performer in the performance and has the right to protect his or her reputation by prohibiting any person, including the assignee of the performer’s rights, to distort, shorten, adapt, or perform any other act with respect to the performance to the extent that such act would cause damage to the reputation or dignity of the performer.

Protection of Rights Management Information

Sections 53/1 and 53/2 of the amended Act stipulate the civil liability of a person who deletes or modifies RMI with the knowledge that such deletion or modification would induce, cause, facilitate, or conceal copyright or infringement of a performer’s right, as well as a person who communicates to the public or imports into Thailand for distribution any copyrighted work with the knowledge that the RMI of such work has been deleted or modified.

The liability for RMI infringement is not stipulated without exceptions. Under Section 53/3, exceptions are provided for cases in which:

  1. the deletion or modification was made by an authorized official in order to enforce the law or to safeguard national security;
  2. the deletion or modification was made by an educational institution, library, or public broadcasting agency for nonprofit purposes; or
  3. the communication to the public of copyrighted work, in which RMI has been deleted or modified, was carried out by an educational institution, library, or public broadcasting agency for nonprofit purposes.

Protection of Technological Protection Measures

Circumvention of TPM is prohibited under Section 53/4 of the amended Act—a person who circumvents TPM or provides the service of circumvention can be held liable for infringement if the circumvention was performed with the knowledge that such circumvention would induce or cause infringement on a copyrighted work or a performer’s rights. Similar to infringement of RMI, any person who circumvents TPM may be fined and imprisoned in accordance with the penalties specified in Section 70/1.

The exceptions to liability arising out of TPM circumvention are included in Section 53/5, under which the act of a person who circumvents TPM shall not be deemed to be an infringing act under Section 53/4 if such circumvention was:

  1. necessary, provided that it falls within the exceptions to copyright infringement under the law;
  2. to analyze the components required to cause one computer program to work with another;
  3. to conduct research and analysis and identify  defects of encryption technology;
  4. to test, examine, or repair security systems of a computer, computer system, or computer network;
  5. to stop the function of TPM which relates to the collection and dissemination of data that indicates the online activities of an individual;
  6. to enforce the law and safeguard national security, which must be made by an authorized official; or
  7. to gain access to copyrighted work, which must be made by an educational institution, library, or public broadcasting agency and made for nonprofit purposes.

Punitive Damages

The amended Copyright Act broadens the scope of civil remedies available for copyright infringement by applying the concept of punitive damages. Section 64 of the Act, an existing section, has been amended to include a second paragraph which allows a competent court to double the amount of damages determined under the criteria set out in the first paragraph of the same section in the event that there is clear evidence that the copyright or performer’s right was infringed on with the intention to allow the work to be widely accessible by the public.

Seizure and Destruction of Counterfeit Goods

The provision on the seizure and destruction of counterfeit goods under the Copyright Act has been changed significantly. Under the new Section 75, copyright owners are no longer entitled to ownership of the infringing articles. Rather, Section 75 grants the competent court the authority to order the infringing articles to be confiscated or destroyed, with the infringer bearing the cost of the destruction.

The amendments to the Copyright Act will equip copyright owners with broader and more advanced tools to tackle copyright infringement in the new digital age. An air of skepticism remains, however, over how well the new measures will be applied in practice. Therefore, it is important for copyright owners to keep a close eye on any new developments that may arise.

Download Full Article
Related Professionals

Practices

Intellectual Property

Location

RELATED INSIGHTS​ 

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
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