Trademark law in Thailand has been designed as a tool for the protection of brands, logos, or marks used by their owners in connection with their products and services. Despite this protection, however, successful brands or owners of popular products who have invested heavily in promoting their trademarks bear the risk of being imitated by newcomers fascinated by or envious of the success of the reputable brands/products.

This article examines the ability of industry associations to seek legal remedies standing from the Administrative Court in relation to the lawfulness of an exercise of administrative authority by a government ministry or agency. For example, could an industry association representing pharmaceutical companies (known in Thailand as PReMA) bring an action to challenge the authority underlying the Thai Ministry of Public Health’s policy in purporting to issue compulsory licenses to break the patents of research-based pharmaceutical companies?

Non-competition clauses are often inserted in employment contracts by employers for many reasons. But perhaps the main reason is to ensure that should the employee leave employment, the employer’s trade secrets, confidential customer information, confidential business know-how and other confidential matters with which the employee had contact remain protected and cannot be used by such employee in a manner detrimental to the employer. Some employers also insert non-competition clauses in employment agreements to deter employees from leaving for the competition.

Many foreigners hold the high and respected position of director of their respective companies because they know how to manage a company, run a business, make profits, etc. But acting in that capacity, do they know how to comply with Thai law? In other words, do they know and understand what the legal implications of the job are? This article will discuss certain basic legal requirements and responsibilities as well as practice guidelines which new directors should be familiar with.

Recently the Thai government has expressed its intent to enforce a total ban on alcohol advertising in the Kingdom. The ban, which was originally introduced by the Thai Food and Drug Administration (FDA), was scheduled to take force on December 3, 2006. However, the bill provoked considerable debate regarding its scope and the FDA’s legitimacy to institute such restrictions. This debate, including the Council of State’s December 2006 ruling that the FDA lacked authority to implement the ban, resulted in a decision to withdraw the draft law.

There has been much discussion recently concerning the compulsory licensing by Thailand of certain patented drugs under Article 31 of the WTO TRIPS Agreement. Thailand has granted a license to generic manufacturers to produce a cheaper version of certain drugs over the objection of the drugs’ patent owners. Now at least one of these patent owners may choose not to import its other patented drugs into Thailand. While many focus on the issue of Compulsory Licensing under TRIPS, a broader question is being discussed in the background. Does IP ownership constitute a monopoly?

With Thailand enjoying steady economic growth these past few years, many companies have reached or surpassed their targeted profits. When businesses make more profit, employees also earn more money, and things seem to be happy and smooth—until one day the employees submit a demand and the employer refuses to grant it. This article addresses how to deal labor disputes when they arise.

The fight against terrorism has become top priority for most nations. An important part of the anti-terrorism arsenal is the availability and implementation of comprehensive anti-money laundering laws. Thailand, which itself is facing terrorist attacks in the south, is keenly aware of the link between terrorism and money laundering.