Tag: copyright

on by

USTR Section 301 Forced-Labor Determinations: Implications for Thailand

Introduction

The Office of the United States Trade Representative (USTR) has determined that 60 economies, including Thailand, have failed to impose and effectively enforce prohibitions on the importation of goods produced with forced labor. The USTR concluded that these failures are unreasonable and burden or restrict U.S. commerce, making them actionable under Section 301(b) of the Trade Act of 1974.

The determination signals a significant shift in U.S. trade policy and global supply-chain governance. The USTR has emphasized that the U.S. will no longer tolerate conditions that allow foreign producers to gain cost advantages through the use of forced labor, thereby placing American workers and businesses at a competitive disadvantage. Increasingly, access to the U.S. market is being linked to compliance with internationally recognized labor standards.

Forced-Labor Determinations

The USTR’s Section 301 investigations found that permitting goods made with forced labor to enter global supply chains undermines efforts to eradicate forced labor and creates artificial cost advantages for non-compliant producers. According to the USTR, such practices distort market conditions, reduce the profitability of businesses that comply with labor standards, and expose U.S. producers to unfair competition in both domestic and export markets.

The USTR also rejected arguments that domestic labor laws alone are sufficient to address the issue, noting that such laws typically regulate production within a country’s borders but may not prevent the importation of foreign goods produced with forced labor. Consistent with this position, Thailand was identified as one of the economies that failed to impose and effectively enforce a prohibition on imports produced with forced labor. The USTR concluded that this failure undermines global efforts to eliminate forced labor and provides unfair competitive advantages to producers that rely on such practices.

Proposed Additional Duties (Import Tariffs)

To address these concerns, the USTR has proposed imposing additional ad valorem duties on imports from the investigated economies. The proposed tariff structure consists of two fixed rates:

• Tier 1 – 10% Additional Duty Rate

Applicable to economies that have implemented a forced-labor import prohibition, committed to doing so through reciprocal trade agreements, or established a partial regime aimed at preventing the importation of forced-labor goods. Examples include Canada, the European Union, Mexico, Indonesia, Malaysia, Taiwan, and the United Kingdom.

• Tier 2 – 12.5% Additional Duty Rate

Applicable to economies that have neither imposed nor effectively enforced a comprehensive forced-labor import prohibition. Thailand falls within this category, alongside several major U.S. trading partners, including China, Japan, South Korea, Switzerland, and Singapore.

Limitation of Duties

To mitigate unintended economic consequences, the USTR has proposed a number of exclusions and limitations under Annex A of the Federal Register notice. These include:

• Articles and components already subject to Section 232 of the Trade Expansion Act of 1962 relative to tariffs on steel and aluminum, thereby avoiding duplicate tariff treatment;
• USMCA-compliant goods originating from Canada and Mexico;
• Textiles and apparel eligible for duty-free treatment under CAFTA-DR;
• Informational materials, charitable donations, and accompanied personal baggage;
• Raw materials for which alternative domestic or non-U.S. sources are not reasonably available;
• Products whose inclusion could cause significant economic disruption or that cannot be produced in sufficient quantities within, or sourced outside, the U.S.; and
• Products for which additional duties would not materially advance the objectives of the investigation.

Opportunities for Stakeholder Participation

As the proposed duties have not yet been finalized, affected businesses and industry groups may participate in the rulemaking process through several procedural mechanisms:

• Hearing Requests – Submission of requests to appear as witnesses at the public hearings, accompanied by summaries of proposed testimony;
• Written Comments – Submission of detailed comments supporting product-specific exclusions or modifications to Annex A of the Federal Register notice;
• Public Hearings – Participation in hearings conducted by the Section 301 Committee at the U.S. International Trade Commission in Washington, D.C.; and
• Post-Hearing Rebuttals – Submission of rebuttal comments responding to positions advanced by other stakeholders during the hearing process.

Key Takeaways

• The USTR has determined that 60 economies, including Thailand, failed to impose and effectively enforce prohibitions on imports produced with forced labor, and these findings are actionable under Section 301(b) of the Trade Act.

• The USTR has proposed a two-tier tariff framework consisting of a 10% additional duty for economies with existing or partial forced-labor import prohibitions and a 12.5% additional duty for all other investigated economies.

• Thailand falls within the proposed 12.5% tariff category, potentially placing Thai exports at a competitive disadvantage relative to exports from economies subject to the lower rate.

• Annex A proposes several exclusions, including products already covered by Section 232 of the Trade Expansion Act measures, USMCA-compliant goods, CAFTA-DR textiles and apparel, certain scarce raw materials, and non-commercial articles such as books, donations, and accompanied baggage.

• The proposed measures are not yet legally effective. Interested parties may participate in the public comment and hearing process before any final action is adopted.

• The USTR has also proposed a textile mechanism that could permit certain volumes of apparel and textile imports from qualifying economies to enter the United States at reduced tariff rates. It remains unclear whether Thailand will qualify for this mechanism.

• Exporters should anticipate heightened supply-chain due diligence requirements, increased scrutiny from U.S. buyers, and potential shifts in sourcing strategies as companies seek to mitigate tariff exposure.

• U.S. consumers may experience higher prices if additional import costs are passed through the supply chain.

• The final scope, exclusions, and tariff rates remain subject to revision following the completion of the public consultation and hearing process.

Author: Panisa Suwanmatajarn, Managing Partner.

Other Articles

on by

Asia IP – Lesson from Taylor Swift

“Taylor Swift’s extensive trademark portfolio is a best-practice strategy and not overprotection. It complements her copyright ownership by protecting brand elements (name, lyrics, tour titles, cats’ names) for indefinite renewal in commerce.”

Said by Panisa Suwanmatajarn, Managing Partner.

ASIA IP Magazine, Volume 18, Issue 3.

Read Full Articles

Other Articles

on by

Asia IP – Cartoons and characters on merchandise: All about character licensing and IP protection

“Character licensing has become an increasingly important component of the consumer products and entertainment industries across Asia. The region’s large consumer base and strong demand for branded merchandise have created a highly dynamic market for licensed characters.”

Said by Panisa Suwanmatajarn, Managing Partner.

Source: Cartoons and characters on merchandise: All about character licensing and IP protection | Asia IP

Other Articles

on by

Thailand Tightens Trade and Transshipment Regulations Amid Global Pressure

The Intersection of Global Trade Tensions and National Sovereignty

Thailand is currently navigating a delicate regulatory balance. As the economic and technological rivalry between the United States and China intensifies, smaller export-driven nations are increasingly caught in the crossfire. In response, Thailand has begun tightening its investment policies, customs oversight mechanisms, and regulatory frameworks to reduce the risk of its territory being used as a conduit for trade circumvention or unauthorized transshipment. Through these measures, the government seeks to safeguard its economic interests, preserve its international trade credibility, and reinforce confidence among global trading partners.

Deconstructing the Section 301 Legal Challenge

At the heart of Thailand’s immediate bilateral trade agenda is the mitigation of legal risks associated with a Section 301 investigation initiated by the United States Trade Representative (USTR). Section 301 of the U.S. Trade Act of 1974 grants the U.S. government broad authority to investigate foreign government practices or policies that burden or restrict U.S. commerce. Thailand’s Minister of Commerce, leading a technical delegation to the United States, addressed key legal concerns raised by the U.S. government, focusing primarily on the following:

  • Industrial overcapacity;
  • Forced labor compliance; and
  • Thailand’s widening trade surplus with the United States.

The Truth Behind the Trade Surplus

From a legal and economic standpoint, Thailand’s defense against U.S. trade scrutiny hinges significantly on the corporate origin of its exports. Thai trade negotiators clarified to the USTR that at least 30% of the goods contributing to Thailand’s trade surplus are manufactured by U.S.-owned multinational corporations that have legally established manufacturing bases within Thailand. Under international trade law and bilateral agreements such as the Trade and Investment Framework Agreement (TIFA), these transactions reflect legitimate corporate supply-chain integration rather than predatory trade practices. By framing the trade surplus as a mutually beneficial outcome of American foreign direct investment, Thailand aims to legally insulate itself from the punitive tariffs or retaliatory quotas typically triggered by Section 301 findings.

Eradicating Origin-Tagging Fraud and Transshipment

Parallel to its defensive trade diplomacy, Thailand has launched a domestic enforcement campaign to combat origin-tagging fraud and the circumvention of export control regulations, amid heightened global scrutiny over technology supply chains. Following stringent U.S. restrictions on the export of high-end semiconductors and advanced processing components — including Nvidia microchips — to China and other designated jurisdictions, reports emerged suggesting that illicit actors may have attempted to utilize Thai territory as a transit hub for unauthorized transshipment. Under both international customs law and domestic statutes, transshipment fraud — whereby restricted goods are imported into a neutral third country solely to alter country-of-origin labels and be re-exported in evasion of sanctions — poses a severe threat to a nation’s regulatory credibility.

Mitigating Transshipment Risks and Origin-Tagging Fraud

In response, Thailand’s Board of Investment (BOI) has forged a strategic enforcement alliance with the Customs Department to enhance regulatory oversight of all incoming and outgoing high-technology electronic shipments. This inter-agency directive mandates full regulatory oversight and physical inspection protocols across all such shipments. By implementing these rigorous monitoring mechanisms, the Thai government aims to secure its borders against trade non-compliance, protect international corporate partnerships, and reinforce Thailand’s standing as a transparent and legally compliant hub for global commerce.

Rewriting the Legal Framework for Investment Incentives

To institutionalize this enforcement drive, the BOI has undertaken a significant policy overhaul, revising the eligibility criteria for state-backed corporate incentives and tax privileges. Historically, Thailand’s investment promotion regime prioritized attracting rapid foreign capital inflows and export-oriented manufacturing activity. Under the revised framework, however, pass-through or simple assembly business structures are no longer eligible for promotional privileges. Projects seeking corporate tax exemptions and BOI promotional status must now demonstrate that they facilitate a substantive manufacturing process that contributes genuine innovation and local value-added benefits to the Thai economy. Labor-intensive operations that neither transform the product nor generate verifiable intellectual or technical development within Thailand’s borders are expressly excluded from the promotional framework. Through these revised standards, the government aims to strengthen the integrity of its investment promotion regime while reinforcing compliance with international trade and rules-of-origin requirements.

Enhanced Audits and Statutory Compliance Measures

The implementation of these tightened regulations introduces rigorous administrative and supply-chain auditing mechanisms. The BOI and the Customs Department have deployed an integrated verification framework centered on two distinct legal compliance metrics:

  • Traceability Regimes: A comprehensive, legally binding audit trail tracking the precise provenance of raw materials and sub-components utilized throughout the production cycle.
  • Harmonized System (HS) Code Scrutiny: Detailed algorithmic and physical verification of customs classifications to confirm that goods exported from Thailand have undergone a “substantial transformation” in accordance with international trade standards.

Under this strict regulatory regime, any corporation found to have misrepresented the origin of its exports or facilitated illicit transshipments faces the immediate revocation of all BOI investment privileges, as well as severe legal prosecution under Thai customs and trade statutes. Through the combined application of international diplomacy and rigorous domestic enforcement, Thailand is legally fortifying its trade infrastructure, preserving its partnerships with Western technology markets, and ensuring sustained compliance with global regulatory norms.

Key Takeaways

Companies involved in origin fraud or illegal transshipment face loss of BOI privileges and prosecution under Thai law.

Thailand is tightening regulations to prevent its territory from being used for the illegal transshipment of restricted goods, particularly advanced semiconductors.

The U.S. Section 301 investigation focuses on Thailand’s trade surplus, industrial overcapacity, and labor compliance issues.

The BOI and Customs Department now mandate stricter inspections, supply-chain traceability, and HS code verification for high-technology exports.

BOI incentives are now limited to businesses that demonstrate substantial manufacturing activity and local value-added contributions.

Author: Panisa Suwanmatajarn, Managing Partner.

Other Articles

on by

The 2026 Special 301 Report: Modernizing Thailand’s IP Framework Amid Ongoing Challenges

Introduction

The Office of the United States Trade Representative (“USTR”) has released its 2026 Special 301 Report (“Report”), an annual assessment of the global state of intellectual property (“IP”) protection and enforcement among United States trading partners. The Report examines systemic issues ranging from counterfeit goods and online piracy to trade secret protection and concerns regarding forced technology transfer.

For the tenth consecutive year, Thailand remains designated on the Watch List. While the USTR commends Thailand’s legislative progress and specific enforcement successes, the Report underscores persistent systemic vulnerabilities that continue to prevent Thailand’s elevation to a more favorable designation.

Legislative Modernization and Systemic Evolution

The USTR formally acknowledged Thailand’s sustained commitment to harmonizing its domestic laws with international standards. Central to this recognition are the ongoing efforts to amend the Patent Act B.E. 2522 (1979) and the Copyright Act B.E. 2537 (1994). These reforms represent more than mere administrative updates; they serve as the foundational infrastructure for Thailand’s planned accession to the following major international treaties:

  • The Hague Agreement — Streamlining the international registration of industrial designs.
  • The WIPO Performances and Phonograms Treaty (WPPT) — Enhancing digital-era protections for performers and producers.

This Trade Plus policy, championed by the Department of Intellectual Property (“DIP”) under the Ministry of Commerce, signals a strategic intent to foster a transparent, innovation-friendly environment aimed at attracting high-value foreign investment.

Enforcement Successes and the Deterrence Gap

Operational coordination among Thai law enforcement agencies, including the Royal Thai Police and Customs authorities, has yielded notable enforcement successes. The USTR highlighted the successful dismantling of major Internet Protocol Television (IPTV) piracy networks, as well as targeted interventions in notorious physical markets.

A landmark development was recorded at the MBK Center, where authorities moved beyond mere seizures to enforce the termination of lease agreements with tenants found to be engaged in IP violations. This approach signals a meaningful shift in enforcement strategy.

Notwithstanding these achievements, the Report identifies a significant deterrence gap. U.S. stakeholders have expressed concern that enforcement actions continue to focus disproportionately on end-of-line retail operators rather than on upstream manufacturers and large-scale distribution networks. This reactive approach is considered insufficient to permanently disrupt the supply chains of counterfeit goods.

Persistent Challenges

Despite Thailand’s legislative progress, the 2026 assessment identifies several areas of continued concern:

·       The Digital Frontier

Online platforms and illicit streaming applications remain the primary vectors for IP infringement. The USTR noted that, while physical markets in tourist areas have become comparatively cleaner, the volume of pirated content available through digital channels has returned to pre-enforcement levels. Further concerns relate to the protracted length of criminal proceedings and the relative inadequacy of penalties imposed by the judiciary.

·       Pharmaceutical Patent Backlogs

A significant point of friction is the substantial backlog in patent examinations, particularly in the agricultural and pharmaceutical sectors. The United States continues to urge Thailand to provide effective protection against the unfair commercial use and unauthorized disclosure of undisclosed test data for pharmaceutical and agricultural chemical products.

·       Judicial and Regulatory Frameworks

Stakeholders have identified low civil damages as a primary impediment to effective deterrence. In addition, the USTR remains cautious regarding Thailand’s geographical indication (GI) framework, particularly in the context of ongoing trade negotiations with the European Union, which could affect United States market access.

Conclusion

Thailand’s continued designation on the Watch List reflects consistent, if incremental, progress rather than a failure to engage. The transition to the Clear List will require Thailand to move decisively from legislative drafting to deterrent-level enforcement.

For the legal community and rights holders, attention now turns to two critical questions: first, how the Thai judiciary will manage the rising volume of digital piracy cases; and second, whether the DIP can successfully clear the pharmaceutical patent backlog to meet the rigorous expectations of Thailand’s primary trading partners.

The path forward demands a coordinated and sustained response targeting the upstream sources of infringement, strengthening judicial deterrence, and delivering on the legislative commitments that Thailand has already undertaken.

Author: Panisa Suwanmatajarn, Managing Partner.

Other Articles

on by

Thailand’s Expanding Trade Network: Key Updates on FTAs with Partner Countries

Overview

In the context of an increasingly competitive and rapidly evolving global economy, Thailand has placed greater emphasis on expanding its international trade partnerships. The government has accelerated negotiations for Free Trade Agreements (“FTAs”) with key partner countries to enhance competitiveness and reduce trade barriers. Concurrently, Thailand is strengthening bilateral economic relations—such as with the Republic of South Africa—through strategic discussions aimed at promoting trade, exports, and investment. This approach reflects Thailand’s proactive commitment to creating long-term economic opportunities and expanding global market access.

Thailand’s Recent Developments

1. Acceleration of Free Trade Agreement Negotiations

In response to Thailand being subject to investigations under Section 301 of the U.S. Trade Act of 1974 (B.E. 2517), which may result in additional import tariffs and potential investment restrictions, the Thai government has coordinated with the Ministry of Commerce to establish a dedicated task force. This task force is responsible for closely monitoring and addressing the potential impacts of such measures.

The Department of Trade Negotiations (“DTN”) has accelerated adjustments to Thailand’s international trade strategy, positioning FTAs as a key mechanism to diversify risk and mitigate trade barriers arising from U.S. trade actions. Priority negotiations are being fast-tracked with major partners, including the European Union (“EU”), the Republic of Korea, and ASEAN–Canada, with the objective of concluding these agreements by 2026 (B.E. 2569).

Thailand is also advancing previously signed FTAs that are currently undergoing domestic ratification, including agreements with the European Free Trade Association (“EFTA”), Bhutan, and Sri Lanka, with entry into force targeted for 1 January 2027 (B.E. 2570). In parallel, Thailand is upgrading existing agreements, such as the ASEAN–India FTA and the Thailand–Peru FTA, with completion expected by 2026 (B.E. 2569).

In addition, Thailand is actively participating in negotiations on the ASEAN Digital Economy Framework Agreement (“DEFA”), which is expected to play a pivotal role in advancing the regional digital economy. DEFA is anticipated to facilitate digital trade, reshape ASEAN’s market and production landscape, and enhance investor confidence, with negotiations scheduled for completion by November 2026 (B.E. 2569).

2. Economic Cooperation between Thailand and the Republic of South Africa

The Ministry of Commerce has adopted a proactive approach to strengthening trade cooperation between Thailand and the Republic of South Africa through bilateral consultations. These efforts focus on promoting high-potential exports and enhancing economic collaboration to achieve tangible and measurable outcomes, thereby expanding trade channels and export markets.

Both countries have emphasized the importance of advancing a strategic partnership aimed at reducing logistical and financial barriers to trade while promoting efficient bilateral exports. South Africa is well-positioned to serve as a distribution hub for the African region, while Thailand can function as a gateway for African products into ASEAN markets.

Furthermore, both parties have agreed to leverage the existing cooperation framework between Thailand’s Board of Investment (BOI) and Invest South Africa to systematically promote bilateral investment and facilitate cross-border business activities.

Implications

Exporters should conduct thorough reviews of applicable rules of origin and sourcing requirements and, where necessary, adjust their production structures to ensure eligibility for tariff preferences under Thailand’s FTAs.

To mitigate risks arising from U.S. trade measures, exporters are advised to adopt proactive strategies, including revising pricing structures and diversifying export markets. Businesses operating in affected sectors should closely monitor ongoing developments in the global trade landscape to ensure timely and effective responses.

Conclusion

Thailand’s proactive approach to international trade policy demonstrates the effective integration of legal instruments and strategic trade initiatives. The acceleration of FTA negotiations, coupled with the expansion of bilateral cooperation with key partner countries, serves as a critical mechanism for risk diversification and resilience in an increasingly volatile global trading environment.

These developments underscore Thailand’s adaptability to evolving international economic conditions and its strategic response to external trade pressures, particularly those arising from U.S. trade measures. Ultimately, such efforts aim to strengthen Thailand’s long-term economic competitiveness and enhance trade security.

Author: Panisa Suwanmatajarn, Managing Partner.

Other Articles

on by

U.S. Tariff Developments Post Supreme Court Ruling

Background

The U.S. Supreme Court’s decision in Learning Resources, Inc. v. Trump (February 20, 2026) represents a pivotal development in international trade law. The Court held that the use of the International Emergency Economic Powers Act (IEEPA) to impose broad-based import tariffs exceeded the scope of authority delegated to the President of the United States.

Although the ruling establishes clear constitutional limits on executive tariff authority, it does not diminish the central role of tariffs in U.S. trade policy. The administration’s swift recourse to alternative statutory mechanisms underscores continued reliance on tariff measures and heightens uncertainty for Thai exporters and other affected parties.

1.  Constitutional Limits on Tariff Authority

In a 6–3 decision, the Supreme Court reaffirmed that the constitutional authority to set tariffs is vested in Congress. The Court concluded that IEEPA does not provide sufficiently clear authorization for the imposition of broad-based import duties; accordingly, it cannot serve as a valid legal basis for such measures.

Notably, the Court declined to order immediate remedies. Instead, it remanded the question of refunds to the United States Court of International Trade, leaving implementation to be resolved through established customs law procedures.

2.  Refunds: A Legal Entitlement Subject to Procedure

Although the tariffs have been declared unlawful, recovery of duties paid is not automatic. Importers must act within the U.S. customs law framework, including by filing timely protests and, where necessary, pursuing claims before the United States Court of International Trade.

Recent developments indicate that the Court of International Trade is moving toward a more structured refund mechanism, potentially inclusive of interest. However, the process remains procedurally complex and administratively burdensome, requiring proactive engagement from affected importers.

3.  Policy Realignment: Section 122 Tariffs

In response to the ruling, the U.S. President promptly invoked Section 122 of the Trade Act of 1974 to impose a temporary tariff on imports from all countries. This measure reflects a strategic adjustment, demonstrating that the executive branch retains meaningful statutory tools to sustain its tariff policy objectives.

Key features of the Section 122 measure include:

  • A uniform global tariff rate of 10–15%;
  • A statutory ceiling of 15%;
  • A duration of up to 150 days, unless extended by Congress; and
  • Application in addition to existing duty obligations.

4.  Section 301 Investigation: Implications for 16 Jurisdictions

On March 11, 2026, the Office of the United States Trade Representative (USTR) initiated a Section 301 investigation covering 16 jurisdictions, including Thailand. The investigation examines whether certain trade practices constitute unreasonable or discriminatory conduct, with particular attention to structural overcapacity in the manufacturing sector.

The scope of the investigation remains broad and may extend to digital trade, pharmaceutical pricing, market access, and environmental policies. Under Section 301, the USTR is empowered to impose remedial measures, including additional tariffs and investment restrictions.

Thailand has been identified as a jurisdiction of concern, primarily owing to relatively low capacity utilization in the automotive, machinery, and rubber sectors, as well as concerns regarding potential tariff circumvention linked to increased foreign direct investment. These factors may result in heightened scrutiny of Thailand’s role in global supply chains.

The procedural timeline is as follows:

  • Government consultations;
  • Written submissions: March 17 – April 15, 2026;
  • Public hearings: commencing May 5, 2026; and
  • Expected completion within 150 days of initiation.

5.  Implications for Thai Exporters

The evolving U.S. tariff framework presents several material risks for Thai exporters:

  • Loss of competitive advantage: A uniform global tariff eliminates country-specific preferential treatment, reducing pricing differentiation.
  • Policy uncertainty: Temporary measures may be extended, modified, or replaced with more burdensome instruments.
  • Cost impact: Additional duties directly affect product pricing, margins, and overall competitiveness in the U.S. market.
  • Regulatory volatility: Rapid legal and policy shifts are increasingly a defining feature of U.S. trade policy, necessitating ongoing monitoring and agile response strategies.

6.  Practical Considerations

Thai exporters are advised to adopt a proactive and structured approach to managing tariff exposure. Recommended actions include:

  • Reviewing customs classification to ensure accuracy and minimize the risk of misclassification disputes;
  • Adjusting pricing and cost structures to reflect prevailing tariff obligations;
  • Monitoring import timing in accordance with U.S. customs entry requirements;
  • Coordinating with U.S. importers to preserve and exercise available refund rights; and
  • Conducting scenario planning to anticipate and respond to potential policy changes.

Conclusion

The Supreme Court’s ruling in Learning Resources, Inc. v. Trump establishes meaningful constitutional constraints on executive tariff authority; however, it does not diminish the central role of tariffs in U.S. trade policy. The administration’s swift transition to alternative instruments — notably Section 122 and Section 301 — confirms continued reliance on tariff-based measures as tools of commercial and geopolitical leverage.

While refund opportunities may arise for duties previously paid under IEEPA authority, recovery remains procedurally complex and requires active legal engagement. For Thai exporters, the combination of heightened policy uncertainty, increased cost pressures, and intensified regulatory scrutiny underscores the imperative for proactive compliance, rigorous strategic planning, and the full integration of legal considerations into business decision-making.

Author: Panisa Suwanmatajarn, Managing Partner.

Other Articles

on by

IP: Strengthens Intellectual Property Governance Through Reform of the National IP Policy Committee

On 17 March 2026, the Thai Cabinet approved in principle a draft amendment to the Regulation of the Office of the Prime Minister on the National Intellectual Property Policy Committee (No. ..) B.E. .…, as proposed by the Ministry of Commerce. This reform constitutes a measured and forward-looking step to modernize Thailand’s intellectual property (“IP”) governance architecture and to position IP more centrally as a driver of long-term economic competitiveness and innovation-led growth.

The amendment principally revises the composition of the National Intellectual Property Policy Committee (the “IP Policy Committee”), which is chaired by the Prime Minister. The updated membership structure integrates representatives from newly restructured government agencies and introduces, for the first time, senior leaders from prominent private-sector organizations. These changes aim to deepen public–private coordination and to ensure that national IP policy more closely reflects contemporary economic realities and commercialization realities.

Historical Development of the Framework:

The IP Policy Committee was formally established in 2011 (B.E. 2554), with the original Regulation taking effect on 2 September 2012 (B.E. 2555). The Regulation defined the Committee’s composition (initially comprising the Prime Minister as Chairperson and 23 ex-officio government members), its operational rules, and its core mandate to formulate, coordinate, and oversee national IP policy and strategy.

Previous amendments were incremental:

  • Regulation (No. 2) B.E. 2556 (2013) adjusted membership and added procedural rules for meetings in the Chairperson’s absence.
  • Regulation (No. 3) B.E. 2559 (2016) further refined the composition without altering the Committee’s fundamental powers or structure.

The 2026 amendment departs from this pattern by introducing more substantial changes designed to align the Committee with Thailand’s current administrative organization and strategic economic priorities.

Principal Revisions to Committee Composition:

  1. Update of Existing Government Positions (3 positions)
The following reflect current ministerial and institutional nomenclature:
  • Permanent Secretary of the Ministry of Higher Education, Science, Research and Innovation
  •  Permanent Secretary of the Ministry of Digital Economy and Society
  •  Director of the National Higher Education, Science, Research and Innovation Policy Council
  1. Addition of Six New Ex-Officio Members
  • Permanent Secretary of the Prime Minister’s Office — to improve whole-of-government coordination of IP policy
  • Permanent Secretary of the Ministry of Tourism and Sports — to advance IP commercialization in tourism and sports industries
  • Permanent Secretary of the Ministry of Interior — to strengthen promotion and protection of geographical indications (GIs)
  • Chairman of the Federation of Thai Industries — to bring industrial-sector expertise and foster public–private collaboration on industrial property matters
  • Chairman of the Thai Chamber of Commerce — to support Thai businesses in extracting greater economic value from IP assets
  • Director of the National Innovation Agency (Public Organization) — to promote innovation policy alignment and execution

As a consequence, the number of ex-officio members rises from 18 to 24.

Anticipated Institutional and Economic Benefits:

The revised structure is expected to deliver several concrete improvements:

  • Strengthened public–private dialogue, enabling policies to better address real-world business needs and commercialization barriers
  • Reduced inter-agency fragmentation through broader and more balanced representation
  • More coherent and expedited decision-making and policy implementation
  • Closer integration of IP strategy with national priorities in innovation, digital economy, tourism, regional development, and industrial competitiveness

While the larger membership enhances inclusiveness, it also necessitates clear internal governance procedures to preserve operational efficiency.

Key Takeaways:

  • The 2026 amendment marks a significant evolution in Thailand’s IP governance, moving beyond minor compositional tweaks to embed meaningful private-sector participation.
  • By expanding the IP Policy Committee to include leaders from industry associations and innovation agencies, Thailand seeks to create a more collaborative, responsive, and commercially oriented IP ecosystem.
  • The reform aligns national IP policy more closely with broader economic development objectives, particularly in innovation-driven growth and value creation from intellectual assets.
  • Successful implementation will depend on effective coordination mechanisms to manage the enlarged Committee without compromising decisional speed or clarity.
  • Overall, the measure reflects a deliberate policy commitment to elevate intellectual property as a strategic pillar of Thailand’s future economic competitiveness.

Author: Panisa Suwanmatajarn, Managing Partner.

Other Articles

on by

IP Enforcement in Thailand: Strengthened Multi-Agency Operations and Significant Results in 2025–2026

Thailand has significantly advanced its intellectual property (“IP”) enforcement framework through coordinated efforts led by the Department of Intellectual Property (“DIP”), in close collaboration with the Economic Crime Suppression Division (“ECD”) of the Royal Thai Police, the Customs Department, the Department of Special Investigation (“DSI”), and private-sector IP rights holders. These joint initiatives target counterfeit and infringing goods across physical retail locations, storage facilities, border checkpoints, and online marketplaces, with the dual objectives of disrupting illicit supply chains and protecting both consumer safety and legitimate commercial interests.

Enforcement Outcomes in 2025:

Between January and November 2025, integrated operations produced the following results:

  • 1,132 cases of IP infringement
  • 3,344,841 infringing items seized
  • Estimated economic damages exceeding THB 1.14 billion

Compared with the equivalent period in 2024, the number of cases decreased by 16.15%, while the volume of seized items rose by 21.35% and the value of damages increased by 63.89%. This shift indicates greater focus on high-impact interventions and upstream disruption. Contributions by agency were as follows:

  • ECD: 789 cases, 1,820,574 items seized
  • Customs Department: 336 cases, 571,675 items seized
  • DSI: 7 cases, 952,592 items seized

The DIP structured its enforcement activities through three dedicated task forces:

  • Mobile Patrol Units conducting frequent inspections (at least three days per week) in key Bangkok commercial districts, including MBK Center, Platinum Fashion Mall, Pratunam, Sampheng, Silom, Phrom Phong, and Sukhumvit.
  • Regional Task Forces performing bi-weekly operations in provincial high-risk zones, particularly tourist destinations, wholesale markets, and distribution warehouses.
  • Inspection and Evaluation Units carrying out monthly reviews in designated “red-zone” tourist provinces: Bangkok, Chonburi, Chiang Mai, Phuket, Surat Thani (Koh Samui), Songkhla, Krabi, and Prachuap Khiri Khan.

Key Enforcement Actions in Early 2026:

Enforcement momentum continued into 2026 with intensified targeted operations.

  • DIP and ECD Operations (15–31 January 2026): Thirty-two joint actions across Bangkok shopping malls, retail outlets, and northern and eastern provincial markets resulted in the seizure of 11,802 infringing items (estimated damages over THB 14.9 million) and the arrest of 25 individuals. Seized products included counterfeit footwear, apparel, bags, perfumes, and accessories bearing trademarks of Chanel, Louis Vuitton, Gucci, Adidas, Nike, and others. A notable warehouse raid in Samut Sakhon Province on 30 January 2026 recovered 223,404 items valued at more than THB 63.2 million in damages, consisting primarily of substandard consumer goods (shampoo, body lotion, facial cream, toothpaste, and motorcycle spark plugs) that present potential health and safety risks.
  • Border Enforcement with the Customs Department (13 January–6 February 2026): Inspections at Laem Chabang Port, Bangkok Port, Si Racha Free Zone, and Aranyaprathet Customs House led to the interception of 42,451 infringing items (estimated damages THB 223.21 million). Goods included counterfeit luxury bags, shoes, watches, perfumes, automotive components, and solar lamps. For fiscal year 2026 up to 6 February, Customs reported 38 cases with total damages exceeding THB 885 million.
  • Online Platform Measures: Pursuant to Memoranda of Understanding with major e-commerce platforms (Lazada, Shopee, TikTok Shop, NocNoc, and Nex Gen Commerce), authorities secured the removal of 2,867 infringing product listings. Efforts are underway to extend similar arrangements to additional providers.

Strategic Direction:

The Intellectual Property Development Plan B.E. 2569–2570 (2026–2027) coordinates more than 30 government agencies to implement sustained, proactive suppression measures. Core elements include targeting upstream manufacturers and distributors, leveraging ancillary legislation (anti-money laundering, taxation, immigration), expanding online enforcement partnerships, holding property owners accountable for tenant infringements, addressing software piracy, and deploying technology to monitor digital infringement channels.

Key Takeaways:

Ongoing multi-stakeholder cooperation, including public reporting through hotline 1368 or www.ipthailand.go.th, will be essential to sustaining progress, enhancing investor confidence, and supporting long-term economic development.

Thailand’s IP enforcement has become markedly more effective, evidenced by higher seizure volumes and damage valuations despite fewer reported cases, reflecting a strategic emphasis on quality over quantity of interventions.

Operations now systematically address the entire supply chain—from importation and warehousing to retail and online distribution—thereby reducing the availability of counterfeit products.

Consumer protection remains central, with authorities repeatedly highlighting the health and safety hazards posed by unregulated, substandard goods.

Rights holders and businesses operating in Thailand are advised to maintain rigorous supply-chain oversight, secure appropriate authorizations, and proactively protect their intellectual property to minimize exposure to enforcement action.

Author: Panisa Suwanmatajarn, Managing Partner.

Other Articles

on by

International Trade: Updates to Thailand’s Certificate of Origin Issuance under TCFTA and AKFTA

The Department of Foreign Trade (DFT) of Thailand has prepared draft notifications to revise the rules, procedures, and conditions for issuing preferential Certificates of Origin under two significant Free Trade Agreements (FTAs). These amendments primarily align the Product Specific Rules (PSRs) with the Harmonized System (HS) 2022 tariff classification, thereby preserving the eligibility of qualifying Thai-origin goods for reduced or exempted customs duties in the respective markets.

1.  Thailand-Chile Free Trade Agreement (TCFTA)
The draft notification governs the issuance of Form TC for goods exported from Thailand to Chile (or vice versa, where applicable). It updates procedures to reflect the transition of PSRs from HS 2012 to HS 2022, following formal decisions by the Thailand-Chile Free Trade Commission, Cabinet approval, and completion of diplomatic note exchanges in late 2025.
Principal features include:

       •  Electronic application submission via the DFT system or authorised agencies.

       •  Mandatory supporting documents: commercial invoice, transport document (e.g., Bill of Lading or Air Waybill), and origin qualification evidence, differentiated for agricultural and industrial products.

       •  Indication of origin criteria in Box 8 (e.g., WO, PE, CC, CTH, CTSH, QVC, SP).

       •  Validity period of 12 months from the date of issuance.

       •  Special provisions covering retroactive issuance (within 1 year, marked “Issued Retroactively”), non-party invoicing, de minimis deviations (DMI ≤10% FOB), accumulation (ACU), exhibition goods, corrections, and replacements.

       •  Retention of supporting documents for 5 years.
The notification is scheduled to enter into force on 1 April 2026, replacing the existing notification dated 2015.

2.  ASEAN-Korea Free Trade Agreement (AKFTA)
The draft notification pertains to the issuance of Form AK for goods originating in Thailand and exported to the Republic of Korea or other AKFTA member countries. It updates PSRs from HS 2017 to HS 2022, in accordance with joint decisions of relevant ASEAN-Korea sub-committees in mid-2025.
Principal features include:

       •  Electronic submission through the DFT system.

       •  Documentation requirements aligned with those under TCFTA, with specific procedures for agricultural goods (HS Chapters 01–24) and industrial goods (HS Chapters 25–97).

       •  Origin criteria to be indicated in Box 8 (e.g., WO, CTH, RVC 40%, CTC, WO-AK, RVC with actual percentage, CTH+RVC, Specific Processes).

       •  Validity period of 12 months.

       •  Mechanisms for retroactive applications (within 1 year, marked “ISSUED RETROACTIVELY”), back-to-back certification, exhibition goods, third-country invoicing, and replacements (marked “CERTIFIED TRUE COPY”).

       •  Retention of supporting documents for at least 3 years.
The notification is expected to take effect on 1 May 2026, superseding the 2015 notification.

Possible Public Impact:

These revisions are anticipated to deliver net positive outcomes for Thai exporters by ensuring continued and accurate access to preferential tariff treatment under TCFTA and AKFTA, thereby preserving cost competitiveness in the Chilean and Korean markets. Exporters may encounter short-term transitional requirements, including re-assessment of product HS classifications against the updated PSRs, recalculation of regional value content (where relevant), and verification of supply chain documentation. Any delay in adaptation could temporarily jeopardise eligibility for duty reductions or exemptions on specific shipments. Nevertheless, the sustained use of the DFT’s electronic issuance platform is expected to streamline processing, lower long-term administrative costs, and improve overall trade facilitation.

Key Takeaways:

•  The updates align Thailand’s Certificate of Origin procedures with HS 2022 under TCFTA (effective 1 April 2026) and AKFTA (effective 1 May 2026).

•  Exporters must promptly review and adjust HS classifications, origin calculations, and supporting documentation to maintain preferential tariff benefits.

•  The electronic submission system remains central, supporting greater efficiency and compliance.

•  Proactive preparation is essential to avoid disruptions in claiming duty preferences in Chile and Korea.

Author: Panisa Suwanmatajarn, Managing Partner.

Other Articles