Before being marketed in Thailand, a wide variety of products must be registered at the Thai Food and Drug Administration (FDA). These products range from food, food supplements, beverages and medical devices to animal health products, cosmetics, hazardous substances, and all types of pharmaceuticals. Due to the large number of product applications that are filed at the Thai FDA and the stringency of registration requirements, registration timelines—particularly for pharmaceutical products—can be very long.

Thailand’s IP laws have come under increased scrutiny as the country pushes to overcome its long-held reputation as a haven for counterfeiting and piracy. Efforts to transform this perception—and the underlying reality—have taken two forms. First, increased enforcement, led by government officials and committed IP owners, is having a meaningful impact on the market. Second, there is a noteworthy trend among both policymakers and the judiciary to modernize existing laws and practices.

Trade name protection in Thailand is provided under Section 18 of the Civil and Commercial Code. In Singh Suriyaammaritr v Narry Tailors Co Ltd (Case 4583/2552, November 24, 2009), the Supreme Court has applied this section to protect the plaintiffs’ right in their trade name. This article summarizes the decision.

Statistics show that the number of civil suits concerning patent infringement cases tried by the Central Intellectual Property and International Trade Court (IP&IT Court), a branch of the Court of Justice in Thailand responsible for all cases involving intellectual property rights in Thailand, have increased in recent years. A total of 32 cases concerning infringement of both patent and petty patent have been filed in 2009, while, back in 2002, there were only 9 cases.  How did the number of civil suits on patent infringement jump from 9 to 32 cases?

From Enron to Bernie Madoff, numerous high-profile white-collar crimes have attracted significant media attention in recent years. Here in Thailand, the case of Rakesh Saxena has recently resurfaced in the headlines after his extradition from Canada, and he is now awaiting trial on charges of embezzling funds from the Bangkok Bank of Commerce in the mid-1990s. Why this intense public interest in white-collar crime? Some would argue that this form of crime actually causes greater damage to the injured party than many traditional crimes.

The National Office of Intellectual Property of Vietnam has issued an official Notice in favor of General Electric, who lodged an opposition against Vietnamese trademark application GE mancy & Device for real estate services in Class 36 under the name of Phong Thuy One-Member Co. in the Notice, the examiner concluded that the representation of GE mancy & Device would certainly result in association between the mark and General Electric in the minds of the public. The application was refused in accordance with Article 74 of the Vietnamese Law on Intellectual Property.

Colorplus Fashions, an Indian corporation, applied for registration of the mark ColorPlus (stylized) in Thailand in Class 25 for apparel products.  In examining the application, the Trademark Registrar determined that the word “colorplus” signifies colorful or high-quality colors, which is directly descriptive of the properties and/or characteristics of the applied goods.  Correspondingly, the mark was refused for registration on the grounds of nondistinctiveness.

The Trade Competition Act (TCA) seeks to maintain a fair and open market by prohibiting business operators from exerting influence through unfair trade practices.  One such unfair trade practice addressed by the TCA is exclusivity.  The TCA’s prohibitions on exclusivity apply both in cases of market dominant operators (Section 25) and in cases when two or more nondominant operators collaborate to conduct unfair market practices (Section 27). This article provides a brief introduction to the provisions.