Tag: Trademark

on by

TM: Selling One Product Line Can Restrict Your Next Trademark Filing

One Brand, Two Owners

A company owns BRAND X for shampoo and conditioner. It sells the shampoo business and assigns the trademark rights for shampoo to the buyer, while keeping the rights for conditioner. Section 49 of the Trademark Act allows a registered mark to be assigned for some of the goods it covers. Once the partial assignment is recorded, the buyer and seller can own the same mark for their respective goods. The deal may settle who owns BRAND X today while leaving open who can register its next version.

The Conflict Can Surface When Either Party Rebrands:

Suppose the seller later applies to register a refreshed BRAND X logo for conditioner. If the registrar considers the new logo similar to the buyer’s mark and finds that shampoo and conditioner are goods of the same character, the buyer’s mark can block the application of the seller for conditioner. The same issue can arise if the buyer updates its branding and the seller’s retained mark stands in the way.

The Department of Intellectual Property’s examination manual identifies this type of split ownership as a situation Section 51/1 was designed to address. Where that section applies, written consent from the other party creates a presumption of special circumstances. The registrar may then allow coexistence under Section 27, subject to conditions on use. Consent helps, but it does not guarantee registration.

Plan for the Next Filing Before Closing:

The sale agreement should identify the exact goods covered by the transfer and the branding each party will retain. It should also address whether either party may refresh the logo, extend the brand to adjacent products, or file for related marks. If the parties agree to support future filings, specify when written consent must be given, what applications it covers, and how the parties will respond if the registrar proposes limits on use. That discussion is easier while both sides are negotiating the deal than after one has invested in new packaging and needs the other’s signature.

Key Takeaways:

A partial assignment divides existing trademark rights by goods. It does not settle future filings. If both parties will continue using the brand, agree before closing on which changes and product extensions each can pursue, when consent is required, and what happens if registration is refused or allowed only on conditions.

Author: Panisa Suwanmatajarn, Managing Partner.

Other Articles

on by

DIP: Strengthening IP Enforcement and Scrutiny of Celebrity Name Trademarks

The Department of Intellectual Property (DIP) has recently highlighted two areas of intellectual property protection: institutional cooperation to combat online infringement and closer scrutiny of trademark applications involving the names of celebrities and other well-known individuals. These developments reflect continued administrative attention to both enforcement of existing IP rights and prevention of potentially unauthorized trademark registrations. Although neither initiative introduces new legislation or regulatory procedures, both have practical implications for rights holders, brand owners, and businesses operating in the digital and entertainment sectors.

Website Blocking and Institutional Cooperation:

The DIP recently held discussions with the Ministry of Digital Economy and Society concerning the blocking of websites involved in intellectual property infringement under Section 20(3) of the Computer Crime Act. Separately, the DIP met with the Central Intellectual Property and International Trade Court and the specialist prosecution office to discuss cooperation in carrying out their respective official responsibilities.

These discussions indicate an ongoing effort to strengthen coordination among administrative, judicial, and prosecutorial authorities. However, the published announcements do not establish new enforcement powers, application procedures, documentary requirements, processing deadlines, or evidentiary standards. Rights holders should therefore regard these developments as administrative coordination rather than a substantive change in the legal framework governing online infringement.

For businesses facing persistent online infringement, effective enforcement continues to depend on identifying the relevant intellectual property rights, documenting infringing content and URLs, preserving dated evidence, and establishing the authority of the party initiating enforcement action. The appropriate legal route should be assessed according to the nature of the infringement, available evidence, and the remedies sought.

Increased Scrutiny of Trademark Applications Involving Celebrity Names:

In a separate announcement, the DIP emphasized its intention to scrutinize trademark applications involving the names of celebrities and other well-known individuals, particularly where applicants may lack authorization to use those names. The DIP indicated that examination would focus on the applicant’s rights and relevant supporting documents, including evidence of authorization where appropriate.

This administrative position is particularly relevant to trademark applications involving the names of entertainers, public figures, influencers, and other individuals whose names may carry commercial recognition. The use of a well-known person’s name as a trademark may raise questions concerning entitlement to registration, the applicant’s intention, and the possibility of misleading consumers about an association, endorsement, or commercial relationship.

Under the existing Trademark Act, registrability must be assessed against the applicable statutory requirements, including the provisions concerning prohibited marks and other relevant grounds for refusal. The absence of authorization does not automatically establish a statutory ground for refusal in every case, nor does the DIP announcement create an independent prohibition against registering celebrity names. The legal assessment remains dependent on the characteristics of the mark, the circumstances of the application, and the evidence available.

The DIP’s position nevertheless signals increased administrative attention to applications that may involve unauthorized exploitation of personal reputation or potentially bad-faith conduct. Applicants seeking to register trademarks incorporating the names of well-known individuals should carefully assess their legal entitlement and retain appropriate documentation supporting the proposed use and registration.

Practical Implications for Businesses and Rights Holders:

The two developments address different stages of intellectual property protection. Website blocking and institutional cooperation concern enforcement against existing infringement, while scrutiny of celebrity-name trademarks concerns examination of applications and prevention of potentially improper registrations.

For rights holders, both developments reinforce the importance of maintaining reliable documentation. Online enforcement requires evidence of infringement and ownership, while trademark applications involving personal names may require evidence establishing the applicant’s entitlement or authorization. Entertainment businesses, talent management agencies, brand owners, and licensing companies should pay particular attention to contractual provisions governing the commercial use and registration of personal names as trademarks.

Businesses should also distinguish administrative policy statements from binding legal changes. The DIP’s announcements indicate enforcement and examination priorities but do not independently expand statutory powers, establish new causes of action, or alter the legal standards applicable to trademark registration and IP enforcement.

Key Takeaways:

The DIP’s recent announcements reflect continued attention to online IP enforcement and potentially unauthorized trademark applications involving celebrity names. Institutional cooperation may support more effective enforcement, while closer examination of trademark applications may help identify questionable claims to well-known personal names. However, neither development changes the existing statutory framework. Rights holders should maintain comprehensive enforcement evidence, ensure that trademark applications are supported by appropriate legal rights and authorization, and monitor whether these administrative initiatives lead to further published guidance or procedural changes.

Author: Panisa Suwanmatajarn, Managing Partner.

Other Articles

on by

DIP: Revised Electronic Filing Procedures for Geographical Indications

The Department of Intellectual Property (DIP) has revised its administrative procedures for geographical indication (GI) applications and related filings, including the use of electronic submission systems and digital identity verification. The changes cover GI registration, oppositions, appeals, amendments, cancellation requests, and procedures relating to authorization to use the official Thai GI promotional symbol.​

Electronic Filing and Digital Identity Verification:

The revised procedures facilitate the electronic submission of GI applications and supporting documents through the DIP’s designated electronic system. Applicants may use electronic certificates obtained through the DIP’s digital identity verification system or other approved digital identity services, subject to the applicable requirements. The procedures also address the submission of additional documents, correction of deficiencies, and other steps required during the examination and registration process.​

Electronic Communications and Procedural Deadlines:

Applicants are responsible for monitoring the electronic filing system for official orders, notifications, and decisions concerning their applications. Email alerts are provided as a convenience and should not be relied upon as a substitute for checking the system. This distinction is particularly important where an official communication triggers a deadline for submitting documents, responding to an opposition, or filing an appeal.​

Authorization to Use the Thai GI Symbol:

The DIP has also revised administrative requirements concerning authorization to use the official Thai GI promotional symbol, including the relevant application and approval procedures. Registration of a geographical indication and authorization to use the official promotional symbol are distinct matters. Businesses seeking to display the symbol on their products or marketing materials must comply with the applicable authorization requirements rather than relying solely on the GI’s registered status.​

Key Takeaways:

The revised procedures support the digital administration of GI rights and related applications while placing greater practical importance on electronic identity verification and monitoring of official communications. Applicants, GI producers, and their representatives should ensure that electronic filings satisfy the prescribed requirements and that procedural deadlines are monitored through the designated system. Businesses using GI-related branding should also distinguish between GI registration and authorization to use the official Thai GI promotional symbol.

Author: Panisa Suwanmatajarn, Managing Partner.

Other Articles

on by

Nene Royal: First-to-File Priority and the Risk of Waiting

Filing Priority Matters

Thailand generally follows a first-to-file trademark system. Under Section 20 of the Trademark Act B.E. 2534 (1991), as amended by the Trademark Act (No. 2) B.E. 2543 (2000) and (No. 3) B.E. 2559 (2016) (the “Act”), an earlier application takes priority in examination over later conflicting applications, subject to statutory exceptions and challenges. Celebrities should therefore not assume that public recognition alone will prevent another person from registering their name as a trademark. Early filing remains essential, even where the celebrity’s reputation predates the competing application.

The recent “NENE ROYAL” case (application no. 260138519, the “Third-Party Application”) illustrates this risk. The mark is associated with the Thai artist known professionally as “NENE” or “NENE ROYAL” (the “Artist”). A third party filed its application with the Department of Intellectual Property (the “DIP”) before applications for “NENE” and “NENE ROYAL” were filed on behalf of the Artist’s rights holder. Because it was filed first, the Third-Party Application had the potential to affect the examination of the later applications filed on behalf of the Artist’s rights holder under Section 20 of the Act.

On 17 October 2026, however, the DIP issued a statement on the Third-Party Application, demonstrating how trademark examination can identify potential misuse of an artist’s reputation. The DIP required the applicant of the Third-Party Application to clarify the origin of the mark, its relationship with the Artist and whether it had obtained authorization to use the mark. The DIP also explained that unauthorized adoption of a name, combined with circumstances indicating dishonest exploitation of another person’s reputation, may justify refusal of registration.

Following this examination, the applicant filed a request on 19 October 2026 to withdraw the Third-Party Application. The Trademark Registrar approved the withdrawal and issued an order refusing registration of the mark.

Examination May Not Reveal the Connection

The outcome may be different where the examiner does not recognize the name or lacks evidence linking it to a celebrity. This is particularly relevant for foreign artists, emerging personalities and names whose significance is apparent mainly within a particular audience. In such cases, an application may proceed unless the relevant facts are brought to the examiner’s attention.

Rights holders should therefore monitor published applications and support any objection with dated evidence of:

  • the name’s recognition;
  • commercial activity under the name;
  • the applicant’s knowledge of the name; and
  • the absence of authorization.

Section 35 of the Act provides a 60-day opposition period from the date of publication.

Registration Makes the Dispute Harder

If an application proceeds to registration, cancellation may become necessary. Section 67 of the Act allows an interested person claiming better rights in the mark to seek cancellation before the court within five years of the Registrar’s registration order under Section 40 of the Act. Discovering the registration late does not restart this period. Failure to act within the statutory window may bar this route, even where the claimant has an earlier entitlement to the name.

The five-year rule does not, however, make every registration immune from later challenge. Sections 61 and 62 of the Act provide separate grounds for cancellation, including lack of distinctiveness, prohibited characteristics and conflict with public order, morality or public policy. These grounds may be pursued by filing a petition with the Trademark Board and are not subject to the same five-year limit. Whether they apply, however, requires a separate legal and evidentiary assessment. An allegation of better ownership rights or unauthorized use of a name does not, in itself, establish grounds for cancellation under these provisions.

Key Takeaways

Celebrities, management agencies and commercial partners should prioritize three measures: early filing, clear contractual ownership and continuous trademark monitoring. They should also preserve evidence showing how the name acquired its recognition and who authorized its commercial use. Once a conflicting application or registration appears, they should identify the available remedy under the law and act promptly.

Author: Panisa Suwanmatajarn, Managing Partner.

Other Articles

on by

DIP: WIPO GRATK Study Puts Genetic Resource Records in Focus

No new filing duty yet:

The Department of Intellectual Property (DIP) has published WIPO GRATK, a study of the possible effects and benefits of Thailand joining the WIPO Treaty on Intellectual Property, Genetic Resources and Associated Traditional Knowledge. The publication signals that accession is under study; it does not mean Thailand has joined the treaty or that patent applicants must now make new disclosures.

The treaty would require a patent applicant whose invention is based on genetic resources to disclose their country of origin or, if that is unknown, their source. If the invention is based on associated traditional knowledge, the application would identify the Indigenous Peoples or local community that provided it, or the source of that knowledge. The treaty will enter into force after 15 eligible parties have ratified or acceded. It has not yet been done so.

The business issue is the paper trail:

For companies working with biological materials, the information needed for a patent application may be spread across research partners, suppliers, universities and other organizations. A company may know what material was used in an invention but lack a reliable record of where it came from or how it was obtained. That gap could complicate patent preparation if the treaty’s disclosure rules later apply.

Biotechnology, agriculture, pharmaceutical and food businesses should look at how they record the source of samples and related traditional knowledge. Research and material transfer agreements can help by requiring partners to provide provenance information and pass it along when materials change hands. The same records may help teams address permissions and benefit-sharing arrangements under applicable rules.

Thai companies seeking patents overseas should also check the requirements in each filing country. Foreign disclosure rules may affect an application even if Thailand has not joined WIPO GRATK. The DIP study is a timely reason to examine these practices, but businesses should read its recommendations before making changes to filing procedures or contract templates. Study itself creates no new obligation. DIP’s earlier consultation identified potential benefits in protecting genetic resources and associated local knowledge, improving patent transparency and supporting fair benefit sharing.

Key takeaways:

• DIP’s study concerns possible accession; it does not establish that Thailand has acceded.

• WIPO GRATK’s disclosure requirement will apply when Thailand joins WIPO GRATK.

• Businesses should check whether their research and supply arrangements preserve reliable records of genetic resources and associated traditional knowledge.

• Thai applicants filing abroad should check the disclosure rules in each relevant jurisdiction.

Author: Panisa Suwanmatajarn, Managing Partner.

Other Articles

on by

DIP: New Facility Checks the Status of Corporate Trademark Owners

A new due-diligence link:

The Department of Intellectual Property (DIP) has added a corporate-status check to its IP Search system. When a trademark record names a legal entity as owner, users can follow a link to the Department of Business Development’s DataWarehouse+ system to check the entity’s status, including whether it has been dissolved, liquidated, or struck off. The facility uses the DBD’s corporate records and is intended to help users identify risks when dealing with someone claiming rights in a company’s trademark.

What the facility means for transactions:

The link is an administrative service; it does not change the rules governing trademark ownership, assignment, or licensing. It gives buyers, licensees, business partners, and enforcement teams a useful first check when reviewing a trademark portfolio or a person’s authority to act for a corporate owner.

A dissolved company’s status should not, by itself, be treated as proof that its trademark rights have disappeared. Thai law provides that a company continues to exist to the extent necessary for liquidation, during which its affairs are settled and assets distributed. The trademark’s status therefore requires a closer review of the liquidation and asset-distribution records, any transfer documents, and the person’s authority to act.

Key takeaways:

  • Check the DBD status when a Thai trademark is registered to a company.
  • Treat the result as a due-diligence flag, then verify the company’s liquidation and asset records.
  • Before signing or enforcing, confirm the current owner and the other party’s authority to deal with the mark.

Author: Panisa Suwanmatajarn, Managing Partner.

Other Articles

on by

Thailand–Canada Free Trade Agreement (TCAFTA): Cabinet Approves Negotiating Framework

Introduction

Thailand’s Cabinet has approved the negotiating framework for the Thailand–Canada Free Trade Agreement (“TCAFTA”) and endorsed Thailand’s participation in the forthcoming negotiations with Canada. The Cabinet also acknowledged the TCAFTA reference paper and the composition of Thailand’s negotiating delegation. In addition, it authorized the Minister of Commerce, or an authorized representative, to launch the negotiations jointly with Canada through an announcement or joint statement.

Background

Thailand currently has 14 free trade agreements (“FTAs”) with 18 countries, covering approximately 60.9% of its total trade. As part of its strategy to strengthen economic stability and competitiveness, Thailand continues to expand its FTA network. In 2025, bilateral trade between Thailand and Canada reached approximately THB 128.9 billion, an increase of about THB 15.4 billion from 2024, with Thailand maintaining a substantial trade surplus. TCAFTA would be Thailand’s first FTA with a North American country.

Scope of the Negotiating Framework

The framework draws on those previously approved by the Cabinet for the ASEAN–Canada FTA and the Thailand–European Union FTA. The draft was discussed with public- and private-sector stakeholders and revised in light of comments from government agencies.

It covers 26 topics, including:

  • Trade in goods
  • Rules of origin
  • Intellectual property
  • Customs procedures and trade facilitation
  • Sanitary and phytosanitary measures
  • Trade in services
  • Digital trade
  • Investment

Domestic procedures are under way to enable the official launch of negotiations in October 2026.

Expected Impact

TCAFTA is expected to have an overall positive impact on Thailand’s trade in goods, trade in services and investment. It would also provide an opportunity to raise Thailand’s trade regulations and standards to a higher international level.

Key Takeaways

  • The Cabinet approved the TCAFTA negotiating framework, Thailand’s participation in the talks and the structure of its delegation.
  • The framework covers 26 topics, including trade in goods, rules of origin, intellectual property, services, digital trade and investment.
  • TCAFTA is expected to enhance Thailand’s competitiveness and benefit trade and investment, while supporting the upgrading of its trade rules.
  • Negotiations are expected to launch in October 2026, once domestic procedures are complete.

Author: Panisa Suwanmatajarn, Managing Partner.

Other Articles

on by

Thailand’s DIP Consults Stakeholders on Strengthening IP Protection and Enforcement

On 8 September 2026, Thailand’s Department of Intellectual Property (“DIP”), Ministry of Commerce, convened a consultation meeting (the “Consultation”) with international and business representatives and Thai government agencies on the protection and enforcement of intellectual property (“IP”) rights in Thailand.

The Consultation was attended by more than 80 participants, including:

  • The Members of the European Association for Business and Commerce (EABC) IPR Working Group; Delegation of the European Union to Thailand; Embassy of the United States of America in Thailand; British Embassy Bangkok; US-ASEAN Business Council (USABC); American Chamber of Commerce in Thailand (AMCHAM); and British Chamber of Commerce Thailand (BCCT).
  • The Ministry of Digital Economy and Society (“MDES”), Customs Department, Department of Special Investigation (“DSI”), Economic Crime Suppression Division (“ECD”) and National Broadcasting and Telecommunications Commission (NBTC).

The Consultation formed part of the Government’s efforts to align Thailand’s IP protection and enforcement more closely with international standards. It gave businesses, rights holders and other stakeholders a forum to raise practical issues directly with the DIP and other relevant agencies. The DIP will take the feedback into account in further developing Thailand’s IP system.

Key Issues Discussed

Participants discussed IP registration, use of technology to improve the registration process, and coordination between the DIP and other government agencies to improve IP enforcement, particularly in addressing IP infringement and promoting more integrated cooperation among relevant agencies. International and business representatives called for shorter processing times and more efficient registration procedures.

The DIP also provided updates on three areas:

  • IP registration: The DIP is using technology to modernize its registration system such as Trademark e-Filing and AI-Image Search and Trademark Checker to facilitate the registrars’ working processes.
  • IP enforcement: Enforcement has been strengthened in commercial areas, at storage facilities and at border checkpoints through inspections, seizures of infringing goods and coordinated enforcement actions by the DIP and relevant authorities, including the Customs Department, DSI and ECD. From January to August 2026, Thai authorities handled 672 IP infringement cases and seized 2,039,432 items infringing copyright rights, with estimated economic damages exceeding THB 875.9 million.
  • Online enforcement: The DIP continues to work with rights holders and e-commerce platforms under existing memorandum of understanding (MOU) on the protection of IP rights on the internet. To date, more than 39 parties have signed this MOU, including several leading e-commerce platforms such as Lazada, Shopee, TikTok Shop, NocNoc, Nex Gen Commerce and LINE Shopping. More than 1,700 infringing listings have been removed through the Notice and Takedown mechanism implemented under this MOU.  In addition to its cooperation with the private sector the DIP is also working with the MDES and DSI to improve measures for blocking websites involved in IP infringement.

Next Steps

The DIP will consider the comments and recommendations received as it develops Thailand’s IP system, with a focus on improving IP registration process and timeline, strengthening enforcement (including against online infringement) and enhancing inter-agency coordination.

Key Takeaways

  • The Consultation gave stakeholders a direct channel to raise practical IP issues with the relevant Thai authorities.
  • Registration efficiency, technology adoption and inter-agency coordination were the main topics.

Author: Panisa Suwanmatajarn, Managing Partner.

Other Articles

on by

DIP e-Exchange: A New Framework for Accessing and Using IP Data

The Department of Intellectual Property (DIP) has launched DIP e-Exchange, a new platform designed to enable government agencies and private-sector organizations to connect with and exchange intellectual property (IP) information held by the DIP. The initiative goes beyond providing another online search facility. It establishes an application programming interface (API)-based infrastructure through which eligible organizations can potentially integrate official IP information into their own systems and workflows.

The DIP describes the platform as part of its development of an IP data infrastructure that allows information to be exchanged between organizations in a standardized and secure manner. The new system replaces the DIP’s previous API channel for existing participating organizations and is provided without charge. The DIP also emphasizes compliance with government data governance and information security requirements.

From IP Records to Usable Business Data:

The DIP e-Exchange currently provides APIs covering six categories of IP information: copyright, geographical indications, petty patents, design patents, invention patents, and trademarks. The DIP’s announcement indicates that the information available through the system includes, for example, granted or published patent information, trademark and rights-holder information, and information concerning copyright works and persons who have notified copyright information to the DIP.

This is significant because IP registry information has traditionally been approached primarily as information to be searched when a particular legal or commercial need arises. An API-based infrastructure offers a different model. Instead of requiring a user to conduct an individual search and manually incorporate the results into another process, an authorized organization’s system can potentially retrieve relevant information directly from the DIP and use that information within its own digital workflow.

The DIP has identified a broad range of potential applications. These include verifying the existence of IP rights in public- and private-sector transactions, supporting the development of higher-value products and services through IP, assisting IP valuation for SME financing, facilitating research and analysis, and enabling enforcement authorities to verify IP rights more efficiently.

Implications for IP Transactions and Financing:

The new infrastructure could be particularly relevant to transactions in which the existence, ownership, or status of IP rights needs to be verified. IP information is routinely relevant to mergers and acquisitions, investments, licensing, technology transfers, financing arrangements, enforcement actions, and IP due diligence. Where organizations regularly undertake these activities, direct access to official data may allow some verification processes to be incorporated into existing compliance, transaction, or portfolio-management systems.

The potential application to financing is particularly noteworthy. One practical challenge in IP-based financing is obtaining reliable information concerning the underlying asset. The DIP specifically identifies the use of IP information for IP valuation in connection with financial institutions’ lending to SMEs as one potential application of the platform.  Easier access to authoritative registry information could therefore contribute to the information infrastructure necessary for financial institutions and other stakeholders to assess IP assets.

However, data obtained from the DIP should not be regarded as a substitute for legal due diligence. Registry information is only one component of determining the legal and commercial position of an IP asset. Depending on the transaction, separate investigation may still be required regarding matters such as chain of title, licenses, assignments, security interests, contractual restrictions, pending disputes, actual use of trademarks, unregistered rights, and the validity or enforceability of particular rights. The legal significance of information retrieved through the system must therefore be distinguished from the efficiency with which that information can be obtained.

Information Security and Data Governance:

DIP e-Exchange is intended for legal entities in both the public and private sectors whose activities relate to IP and that maintain appropriate information security arrangements. Organizations seeking access are required to register and submit supporting documentation to the DIP.

The supporting documentation identified by the DIP includes a request for data connectivity, an MOU where applicable, the relevant service application form, and either evidence of ISO/IEC 27001 certification or the organization’s information security policies and practices.  The platform’s technical documentation also indicates that API access operates through an authorization token, illustrating that access is controlled rather than being an unrestricted bulk-data facility.

These requirements highlight an important distinction between making IP information available for individual public searches and permitting systematic access to government data through APIs. Once information can be retrieved and processed at scale, issues of cybersecurity, access control, permitted use, data retention, system integrity, and internal accountability become increasingly important.

Organizations considering connection to DIP e-Exchange should therefore approach implementation as both an IP-data project and a data-governance project. Appropriate internal controls may need to address who is authorized to access the system, the purposes for which information may be retrieved, how retrieved information is stored and incorporated into other databases, and how access and use are monitored.

Toward Interoperable IP Infrastructure:

The broader significance of DIP e-Exchange is the movement from digitization toward interoperability in IP administration.

Digitization allows applicants, rights holders, professionals, and members of the public to interact electronically with the DIP. Interoperability goes a step further: it enables official IP information to become part of the digital processes of other organizations. Instead of government data remaining within a standalone database that must be consulted separately, standardized APIs can potentially allow that data to interact with other systems.

This may create opportunities well beyond conventional IP searches. Businesses and service providers could potentially incorporate official IP information into portfolio-management and transaction systems; financial institutions could use relevant data as part of IP valuation and financing processes; researchers could conduct more systematic analysis; and enforcement agencies could verify rights more efficiently. The DIP itself has characterized IP information as capable of supporting public services, policy analysis, and the development of future digital services.

The practical value of DIP e-Exchange will ultimately depend on matters such as the scope and quality of the available data, the frequency with which it is updated, the conditions governing access and use, and the extent to which organizations integrate the APIs into their operational systems. Nevertheless, the platform represents an important change in how official IP information can be accessed and potentially used.

For businesses, financial institutions, technology companies, research organizations, IP professionals, and other organizations that regularly process IP information, the relevant question may increasingly shift from whether official IP information is available online to how authoritative IP data can be securely incorporated into the systems through which legal and commercial decisions are made.

Key Takeaways:

DIP e-Exchange introduces API-based access to official IP information, covering copyright, geographical indications, petty patents, design patents, invention patents, and trademarks.

The potential uses extend beyond conventional registry searches. The DIP identifies transaction verification, IP valuation and financing, research, enforcement, and development of digital services among the intended applications.

API access may facilitate the integration of IP information into organizational workflows, including due diligence, portfolio management, financing, and compliance processes.

Registry data does not replace legal due diligence. Ownership, contractual rights, chain of title, disputes, unregistered rights, and validity or enforceability issues may still require separate investigation.

Information security is a central feature of the framework. Organizations seeking access are expected to demonstrate appropriate information security standards, policies, or practices.

The initiative represents a broader transition toward interoperable IP infrastructure, in which government-held IP information can potentially become part of the digital systems used to make legal, financial, and commercial decisions.

Author: Panisa Suwanmatajarn, Managing Partner.

Other Articles

on by

Substantive Agreement Reached on the Thailand–United States Agreement on Reciprocal Trade (ART)

Introduction

On 1 September 2026, Thailand and the United States reached agreement on the substance of an Agreement on Reciprocal Trade (the “ART”) in Washington, D.C. Technical details remain outstanding, and the ART has not been signed.

The tariff rate applicable to Thai goods is likewise unsettled. A Section 301 investigation into structural excess capacity remains before the United States Trade Representative (“USTR”), and the final rate will depend on its outcome.

The 12.5 percent rate now in force did not simply replace an earlier rate. It is the latest in a sequence of four measures, each resting on a different legal footing, and in each case the preceding measure ceased to apply because its statutory basis lapsed, was struck down, or was superseded by negotiation.

How One Measure Replaced Another

  • Reciprocal tariffs under IEEPA: Thailand was subject to a reciprocal tariff of 36 percent imposed under the International Emergency Economic Powers Act (“IEEPA”). Following a joint statement with the United States, that rate was reduced to 19 percent, announced on 1 August 2025, which in turn led to the announcement of the ART framework on 26 October 2025.
  • The Supreme Court ruling: On 20 February 2026, the United States Supreme Court held, by six votes to three, that IEEPA does not confer authority on the President to impose tariffs. The reciprocal tariff regime fell away, including the 19 percent rate applied to Thailand.
  • Section 122: The United States then imposed a temporary tariff of 10 percent on all countries under Section 122 of the Trade Act of 1974. That authority carries a statutory limit of 150 days, and the measure expired on 24 July 2026.
  • Section 301: On the same day, the USTR announced tariffs under Section 301 covering 60 trading partners. Thailand was placed in the 12.5 percent band under the forced labor case. Cambodia, Indonesia and Malaysia were placed at 10 percent, leaving Thai exporters with a cost disadvantage of approximately 2.5 percentage points against those regional competitors.

Each step rests on a different statute. A rate imposed under one authority is not comparable with a rate imposed under another, even where the percentage is identical.

Where the Rate Stands Now

Section 301 does not produce a single rate. It proceeds case by case, and the resulting rates accumulate.

  • Case 1 — Forced labor: Determined, producing the 12.5 percent rate now in force.
  • Case 2 — Structural excess capacity: Pending, no determination has been issued.

The Department of Foreign Trade (“DFT”) expects the two cases together to result in a combined rate of no more than 19 to 20 percent. With Case 1 at 12.5 percent, this implies approximately 6.5 percent from Case 2.

It is at this point that the two figures of 19 percent must be kept distinct. The 19 percent applied before February 2026 was a single reciprocal tariff imposed under IEEPA and no longer exists. A figure of 19 percent today refers to the two Section 301 cases taken together, under an entirely different statute. The same number denotes a different measure.

What Was Agreed on 1 September

The Deputy Prime Minister and Minister of Commerce met the USTR and the Deputy USTR in Washington, D.C. on 1 September 2026, following four days of technical negotiation conducted by Thailand’s representatives.

The parties agreed on the substance of the ART, and the negotiating teams on both sides were directed to finalize the remaining technical details. The ART addresses non-tariff barriers, digital trade, and commercial opportunities. The United States indicated that the rate arising from the pending Section 301 excess capacity investigation would be set at a fair and competitive level.

Why the ART Does Not Settle the Rate

The Ministry of Commerce (“MOC”) confirmed on 7 September 2026 that agreement on the substance of the ART does not fix the final tariff rate, because the Section 301 excess capacity investigation remains under consideration.

Two distinct instruments are involved:

  • The ART is a bilateral agreement between Thailand and the United States.
  • A Section 301 determination is a unilateral United States administrative process.

Concluding the former does not conclude the latter.

The two meet at a single point. The USTR set the Case 1 rate at 10 percent for economies that already prohibit imports of goods made with forced labor, that operate a partial regime having that effect, or that have committed through an ART to impose and enforce such a prohibition. Thailand satisfies none of these conditions and therefore remains at 12.5 percent.

What lowers the rate is the forced labor commitment that an ART carries, not the ART itself. An agreement without such a commitment would not qualify, and an agreement containing one would still leave Case 2 open.

What Remains Outstanding

Three matters remain unresolved.

  • The Case 2 determination has not been issued, and no date has been announced. Until it is, the rate applicable to Thai goods is not fixed.
  • The technical annexes to the ART have not been finalized, and the agreement has not been signed.
  • The commercial terms of the ART have not been published. Commitments on imports of United States goods will bear on Thailand’s trade and current account balances.

Key Takeaways

  • The tariff applicable to Thai goods has been replaced three times since 2025, moving from 36 percent and then 19 percent under IEEPA, to 10 percent under Section 122, to 12.5 percent under Section 301 to date.
  • Rates imposed under different statutes are not comparable, even where the percentage is identical.
  • Section 301 rates accumulate across cases. Case 1 (forced labor) produced the current 12.5 percent. Case 2 (excess capacity) is pending.
  • A combined figure of 19 to 20 percent refers to both Section 301 cases together, and not to the former IEEPA rate of 19 percent.
  • Agreement on the substance of the ART was reached on 1 September 2026. Technical details remain outstanding and the ART is not signed.
  • An ART containing a forced labor undertaking would move Case 1 from 12.5 percent to 10 percent, but would not determine Case 2. Thailand remains at 12.5 percent, and the MOC confirmed on 7 September 2026 that the final rate awaits that determination.

Author: Panisa Suwanmatajarn, Managing Partner.

Other Articles