Thailand’s MOU on Online Advertising and IPRs Promotes Collaboration to Fight Infringement

December 6, 2022

Thailand’s MOU on Online Advertising and IPRs Promotes Collaboration to Fight Infringement

Thailand’s Department of Intellectual Property (DIP) has continued its strategy of enlisting the support of stakeholders from various sectors in the fight against infringement of intellectual property rights (IPRs) by introducing a memorandum of understanding (MOU) on advertising practices. This follows the success of last year’s MOU on Online IP Protection, which aimed to tackle issues of intellectual property (IP) infringement on various e-commerce marketplace platforms. That MOU represented Thailand’s efforts in bringing together relevant stakeholders to address online IP infringement issues in a unified and collaborative manner.

The DIP’s latest such cooperative initiative is the MOU on Online Advertising and IPRs. A signing ceremony for the MOU was held on October 28, 2022. The DIP, three advertising associations, and various IPR owners all participated in the event, which took place at the Ministry of Commerce. Tilleke & Gibbins joined to sign the MOU as one of the founding signatory parties.

The major parties to this MOU are:

the DIP;
advertising business operators (online advertisement producers and advertisement providers);
associations related to advertising and media;
IPR owners—particularly those experiencing IPR infringement problems in Thailand; and
law firms.

Objectives of the New MOU

The objective of the new MOU on Online Advertising and IPRs is to build and enhance collaboration among IPR owners, advertising business operators, associations, and the DIP, with the goal of preventing and suppressing the production, distribution, and circulation of online IP-infringing advertisements and halting the income flowing to infringers from advertisements posted on IP-infringing websites or applications.

This MOU addresses different issues in comparison to last year’s MOU on Online IP Protection. The latter addressed IP infringing merchandise on e-commerce platforms, whereas the new MOU tackles the issue of IP-infringing advertisements, as well as IP-infringing websites and applications, with more focus on infringing content than on infringing merchandise.

Highlights of the New MOU

A noteworthy practice introduced under this new MOU is that once relevant infringement is found, the DIP may act as an intermediary for IPR owners in coordinating with the relevant advertising business operators and associations to eliminate advertisements on websites and software applications that infringe IPRs, with supporting evidence or as requested by IPR owners and other related parties to the MOU.

As such, IPR owners who join this MOU are likely to gain recognition and receive strong support from the DIP, advertising business operators, and associations to resolve IPR infringement issues specific to online advertising. The level of cooperation from advertising business operators and associations is expected to be greatly improved as a result of joining this MOU.

This development is also significant in light of Thailand’s recent promulgation of amendments to the Copyright Act B.E. 2537 (1994), introducing a notice-and-takedown system for reporting infringing content hosted by internet service providers. The new MOU on Online Advertising and IPRs harmoniously corresponds with the Thai authorities’ increasingly proactive strategies for tackling online infringement in advertisements, websites, and applications.

Related Professionals

Suebsiri Taweepon

Partner

Thailand

+66 2056 5877

Email

Chariyaphon Vachanavuttivong

Thailand

+66 2056 5874

Email

RELATED INSIGHTS

November 1, 2024

ICLG: Franchise 2025—Thailand Chapter

Tilleke & Gibbins has contributed the Thailand chapter to the Franchise 2025 from the International Comparative Legal Guides (ICLG) series published by Global Legal Group. This comprehensive guide provides detailed analysis of franchise laws and regulations across multiple jurisdictions worldwide. Each chapter of the guide follows a Q&A format, organized into key sections covering critical aspects of franchise law and operations, including: Relevant legislation and rules governing franchise transactions Business organization options for franchised operations Competition law considerations Protection of intellectual property and brands Liability issues and risk mitigation Governing law and dispute resolution Real estate matters Online trading regulations Termination requirements Joint employer risks and vicarious liability Currency controls and taxation Commercial agency considerations Good faith obligations and fair dealing requirements Ongoing relationship management Franchise renewal processes Franchise migration procedures Electronic signatures and document retention The Thailand chapter, authored by Alan Adcock and Kasama Sriwatanakul, examines these topics in detail, with particular attention to recent developments like the Trade Competition Commission’s Franchising Guidelines which introduced new disclosure requirements and protections for franchisees. The complete Thailand chapter is available as a PDF below. The Thailand chapter—and the full Franchise 2025 guide—are also freely available on the ICLG website.

October 21, 2024

Thai Court Decision Moves Design Assessment Closer to International Standards

Thailand’s Central Intellectual Property and International Trade (IP&IT) Court has delivered a favorable ruling for Sumitomo Rubber Industries, Ltd., a major player in the tire manufacturing industry, regarding the registration of its motorcycle tire design patent. In this case, Tilleke & Gibbins represented Sumitomo in successfully advocating for recognition of the unique design elements in the company’s motorcycle tire products. Case Overview The case revolved around Sumitomo’s two design patent applications for motorcycle tire designs, which were initially rejected by the Department of Intellectual Property (DIP) on the grounds that they were similar to prior art. Based on an examination of the design elements, primarily focusing on the tire tread patterns, the DIP’s Patent Board had concluded that Sumitomo’s designs were not sufficiently unique to warrant patent protection, as the tread patterns of the new designs were deemed too similar to one found in prior art for tire products. In response, Tilleke & Gibbins filed a complaint with the IP&IT Court on behalf of Sumitomo, seeking a revocation of the Patent Board’s decision and requesting that the court compel the DIP, as the defendant, to proceed with the registration of Sumitomo’s design patents. The complaint emphasized that the designs were novel and distinct, warranting patent protection under Thai law. Legal Strategy The firm’s legal argument focused on the interpretation of Thai patent law, particularly regarding the protection of a product’s external appearance, and emphasized that the determination of a design’s novelty must consider the product’s overall appearance rather than isolating individual features. This approach is consistent with international guidelines on design patents, which require the evaluation of novelty and distinctiveness based on how an informed user would perceive the design as a whole. While Sumitomo’s tire tread patterns may share some superficial similarities to existing designs, the overall impression

October 20, 2024

Vietnam: Challenges in Recordal of Trademark Assignments

The annual statistics issued by the Intellectual Property Office of Vietnam (“IP Office”) in recent years show an increase in the number of IP transactions and applications to establish IP rights, including requests for the recordal of assignment of IP rights. Nevertheless, the numbers of trademark assignment recordals approved by the IP Office has not followed this trend, falling from 1,281 requests approved in 2022 to 1,120 requests approved in 2023. This decrease may be due to the IP Office’s overly strict viewpoint in approving trademark assignments, including its rejection of assignment recordal on the ground of conflict with the assignor’s trade name. IP Office’s practice on assignment recordal Vietnam’s IP Law restricts the assignment of trademarks in several cases, as set out in Article 139.4 that “the assignment of the rights to marks must not cause confusion as to properties or origins of goods or services bearing such marks.” Thus, when an assigned mark is identical to the dominant element of the assignor’s company name, the IP Office will view that the assignee’s use of the mark will result in confusion with the assignor’s trade name, and then instantly reject the assignment request. In this case, the IP Office will only accept the assignment if the IP holder can submit documents issued by relevant authorities proving at least one of the following conditions: The assignor has assigned all business premises and operations under its name to the assignee; The assignor has removed business lines relating to the goods/services bearing the trademarks and such removal is recorded in the Enterprise Registration Certificate; The assignor has been dissolved or does not exist after signing the agreement; The assignor has changed its name after signing the agreement so that it does not contain any element identical or similar to the assigned

October 7, 2024

Cambodia to Assess New Penalty for Late Patent Annuity Payments

Starting October 15, 2024, Cambodia will implement a new penalty for late patent annuity payments and restorations, according to an unofficial announcement from the country’s Department of Industrial Property under the Ministry of Industry, Science, Technology, and Innovation. This new penalty will apply to patents, utility model certificates, and plant variety protection registrations. To avoid additional charges and prevent the abandonment of any pending applications or the lapse of registrations, applicants and registration owners must pay each annuity within the six months before the annuity period starts, or by its due date. If the annuity is not paid by the due date, a grace period of six months is allowed for late payment, with a daily charge of KHR 500 (approximately USD 0.125) per day. If payment is not made within this grace period, the patent will be deemed withdrawn or will lapse. However, the Patent Office can initiate the restoration process within the last six months of the annuity period. This requires a USD 25 restoration fee plus an additional daily charge of USD 0.125 from the start of the grace period until payment is completed. To avoid additional charges and prevent the potential abandonment of applications or registrations, companies and their appointees need to keep track of all annuity due dates for patents, utility model certificates, and plant variety protection registrations and pay all annuities well in advance of the due date. For more details on this penalty, or on any aspect of intellectual property protection in Cambodia, please contact Tilleke & Gibbins at [email protected].

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

Industries

Practices

December 6, 2022