Section 27 of the Thai Trademark Act allows for the possibility that confusingly similar trademarks may be registered if they have been honestly and concurrently used by their owners. This provision, however, has seldom been put into practice by the Thai Registrar and Board of Trademarks when considering applications for potentially similar marks.

This French-language article examines Thai law in relation to giving gifts to public officials. Such gift-giving is permissible in certain circumstances, but caution is necessary in order to avoid potential violations of the anti-corruption regimes in other countries, which may view these transactions as a bribe.

Written in a Q&A format, this chapter provides a comprehensive overview of the issues faced by life sciences companies in Thailand. Topics covered include the regulatory framework, manufacturing of medicinal products, clinical trials, marketing restrictions, packaging and labeling requirements, intellectual property issues, and product liability.

One of the common reasons Thai authorities refuse to allow marks to register is because they are descriptive of the goods or services that fall under the mark, and thus lack distinctiveness. According to the current practice, the Thai Registrar checks for any possible linkage between the meaning of the mark and the goods or services to be registered; if one is found, the Registrar will reject the registration of such mark. The trademark applicant is then entitled to file an appeal petition with the Board of Trademarks.

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?