Trademark License Agreements in Thailand: Choice-of-Law Clauses and Registration Requirements

June 3, 2016

Trademark License Agreements in Thailand: Choice-of-Law Clauses and Registration Requirements

Informed Counsel

In order to receive royalties, a trademark owner may license out its trademark rights to another party. To license trademark rights, a trademark license agreement must be made in writing and registered at the Department of Intellectual Property (DIP), in accordance with Section 68 of the Thai Trademark Act. If a trademark license agreement is not registered, it will be void, according to Section 152 of the Civil and Commercial Code and the support of various Supreme Court judgments (Decisions 7770/2547, 6436/2543, and 6190/2550). Registration helps disclose the owner and origin of the goods to avoid confusion among the public.

Sometimes the parties to a trademark license agreement will include a choice-of-law clause in the agreement, designating a foreign governing law. This raises a key question: if a choice-of-law clause indicates that a trademark license agreement is governed by foreign law, does it still need to be registered as required under Thai law? The Central Bankruptcy Court recently answered this question in a case involving the largest amount of compensation ever requested in the history of the courts for breach of a trademark license agreement.

Tilleke & Gibbins’ client, a leading manufacturer and supplier of customized fittings and pipes, is a trademark owner in various countries, including Thailand. A former director of our client assigned its trademark to another party, the opposing party in this case. At a later point, the opposing party granted a license to our client, which became the licensee of the trademark. The former director and the opposing party included a choice-of-law clause in the agreement designating English law as the governing law. The parties did not register the license agreement with the DIP.

At a later point, our client underwent reorganization, during which it was alleged that our client had failed to perform its obligations under the trademark license agreement. The opposing party subsequently filed a request for compensation arising out of a breach of the license agreement for THB 6.9 billion, the largest amount of compensation ever requested in the history of the courts for breach of a trademark license agreement.

Among other defenses, our client argued that the trademark license agreement was void under Section 152 of the Civil and Commercial Code, because it was not registered at the DIP in accordance with Section 68 of the Trademark Act. In rebuttal, the opposing party claimed that the choice-of-law clause in the agreement designating English law as the governing law meant that registration under Thai law was not required.

In Thailand, a trademark license agreement is based on the general legal principle of freedom of contract. The parties to a trademark license agreement may essentially agree on any term in the agreement as long as it is not prohibited by law.

In this case, the parties chose a foreign law to govern the trademark license agreement to avoid having to comply with requirements under Thai law. Generally, a dispute regarding a trademark license agreement falls within the jurisdiction of the Intellectual Property and International Trade Court. However, as the dispute in this case was raised while our client was undergoing reorganization, jurisdiction fell within the purview of the Central Bankruptcy Court.

The Central Bankruptcy Court decided that the trademark license agreement was required to be registered in Thailand because the trademarks were registered and protected under Thai law. Because the trademark license agreement was not registered in Thailand, the agreement was void, in accordance with Section 68 of the Trademark Act and Section 152 of the Civil and Commercial Code. Therefore, the opposing party had no right to claim THB 6.9 billion in compensation.

Notably, the Central Bankruptcy Court did not state that the choice-of-law clause was invalid. Instead, the Court clarified that the choice-of-law clause did not serve as an exception to Section 68. Regardless of the choice-of-law clause, the trademark license agreement was still required to be registered with the DIP. Licensors and licensees should be aware of this ruling and ensure that their trademark license agreements are registered in Thailand.

Download Full Article

Related Professionals

Nandana Indananda

Thailand

+66 2056 5555

Email

Ploynapa Julagasigorn

Thailand

+66 2056 5555

Email

RELATED INSIGHTS

October 1, 2024

The Wait is (Almost) Over for Local Certificates for IR Designations

Background Since Thailand’s accession to the Madrid Protocol in November 2017, the trademark registration landscape in the country has undergone significant transformation. Brand owners can seek trademark protection in Thailand through a streamlined international process in addition to the national route. This alignment with global practices has somewhat simplified the registration process, offering businesses a valuable pathway to safeguard their brands in this key Southeast Asian market. However, despite the streamlined process, a technical glitch at the Trademark Office in Thailand’s Department of Intellectual Property has caused delays in issuing local certificates and statements of grant following provisional refusals — commonly referred to as ‘Model Form 5’. These documents are crucial for finalising trademark registrations and confirming their validity within Thailand. It is important to note, however, that this technical issue did not affect the issuance of statements of grant for international registrations (IRs) that had not been provisionally refused. Recent developments The good news is that, as of 19 August 2024, the Trademark Office has successfully resolved the technical issues impacting the issuance of these essential documents. With the glitch now fixed, the office has begun to process the backlog of local certificates of registration and statements of grant for IRs designating Thailand following provisional refusals. What this means for brand owners The resolution of this technical issue represents a significant milestone for brand owners who have been waiting for their local certificates. As the Trademark Office works to clear the backlog, the issuance of certificates and statements of grant is likely to proceed more promptly. For those affected by the delay, the end is in sight. The issuance of these documents will enable brand owners to officially complete their trademark registration in Thailand and benefit from the protections offered under Thai law. In the meantime, brand owners

September 26, 2024

Indonesia Issues New Franchise Regulation

Indonesia enacted a new franchise regulation, Government Regulation No. 35 of 2024 on Franchising (“GR 35/2024”), on September 2, 2024. Franchising in Indonesia was previously governed by Government Regulation No. 42 of 2007 on Franchising (“GR 42/2007”), along with an implementing regulation, Ministry of Trade Regulation No. 71 of 2019 regarding Implementation of Franchising (“MOT Regulation 71/2019”). This new regulation repeals GR 42/2007. However, MOT Regulation No. 71/2019 remains in effect until a new MOT regulation can be enacted. The new franchise regulation contains several amendments and provides more detailed requirements to complement MOT Regulation No. 71/2019. Comparison of GR 35/2024 to GR 42/2007 Minimum years of business operation. The new regulation reduces the minimum duration that a franchise registration applicant must have been operating from five years to three years. Intellectual property (IP) status. Any relevant IP must now be registered before a franchise registration application can be submitted. This is a change from the previous regulations, under which it was possible to obtain a franchise registration (STPW) while an IP application was still pending, and if the IP application could not be registered, the STPW would be canceled. Registration requirements for foreign franchisors. Under the new regulation, foreign franchisors must provide a legalized or apostilled business permit document from the country of origin in addition to the previously required franchise offering prospectus and statement letter from the relevant Indonesian authority. Administrative sanctions. The new regulation has adjusted the three escalating stages of administrative sanctions to (1) two warning letters, (2) a 14-day suspension from business activities, and (3) STPW revocation. This varies from the three stages under the previous regulation (three warning letters, fine, and STPW revocation). The new regulation also expands the list of noncompliant actions that are subject to these administrative sanctions. In addition to

September 23, 2024

Cambodia Launches Trial of Intellectual Property Rights Recordation System

The General Department of Customs and Excise (GDCE) in Cambodia’s Ministry of Economy and Finance launched a trial phase of its Intellectual Property Rights Recordation System (IPRRS) on September 1, 2024. The system compiles necessary information and documents related to intellectual property rights in the country, enabling customs authorities to swiftly access these documents and enhance their ability to identify and intercept potential parallel imports and infringing goods at the border. This will also better facilitate ex-officio actions by customs authorities. The system is currently referred to as being in a “trial phase” to support further amendments or updates to address any potential technical errors that may arise from public use. However, the IPRRS is already fully operational. Types of Recordation Currently, the IPRRS allows two types of recordation: Intellectual property recordation is available for trademarks, geographical indications, copyrights, and related rights that are protected in Cambodia. It allows IP owners, authorized representatives, and legal representatives to record information and documents relating to such rights, including information on possible or potential counterfeit goods, with the GDCE. Recordation will give customs authorities quicker access to the information and enable them to promptly take action against potential counterfeit or infringing goods. Exclusive distributorship recordation is meant to streamline the process that takes place after the Ministry of Commerce issues a notice of the recordation of exclusive rights. Under the current practice, after receiving a copy of a notice of the recordal of an exclusive distributorship issued by the Ministry of Commerce (MOC), the GDCE needs to enter the information into their system manually to enable them to promptly identify or stop potential parallel importation at the border. This reportedly causes delays in border officers’ access to the necessary information. Recordation through the IPRRS, on the other hand, allows local exclusive distributors

September 9, 2024

Regional Guide to Franchising Law in Southeast Asia

The popularity of the franchise business model has been growing rapidly in Southeast Asia in recent years, with some of the world’s top brands becoming common sights in the commercial districts and shopping malls of major regional cities in Cambodia, Indonesia, Laos, Myanmar, Thailand, and Vietnam. While for most countries in this part of the world, franchising has not been explicitly mentioned in legislation, well prepared franchise business operations can comfortably adapt to each country’s regulatory framework, and the growth is poised to continue even as the global retail sector redesigns and redoubles its efforts in the wake of the COVID-19 outbreak. In fact, the franchise business model, which is both global and hyper-local at once, is one of the most promising solutions that entrepreneurs are turning to in their quest to overcome the challenges of the new economic reality. The Regional Guide to Franchising Law in Southeast Asia provides key, up-to-date insights into the legal frameworks regulating franchise operations in these Southeast Asian countries, and helps brand owners understand the most relevant laws, authorities, and procedures for their business. Some of the essential topics covered for each jurisdiction include considerations in negotiating and designing franchise agreements, protecting intellectual property rights, and important information on judicial and arbitral procedures should a dispute arise between franchisor and franchisee. Practitioners from Tilleke & Gibbins’ offices in Cambodia, Indonesia, Laos, Myanmar, Thailand, and Vietnam contributed to guide—not only by providing legal expertise on the laws and mechanisms applicable in each jurisdiction, but also by examining strategies for establishing and running resilient franchise operations in Southeast Asia. The full guide can be accessed as a PDF through the button below.

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

June 3, 2016