Tag: Trademark

on by

Supreme Court Fortifies Ban on Monopolizing Common Trade Imagery

In a ruling with widespread implications for trademark registrability, Thailand’s highest court, decision no. 2314/2564, has upheld the invalidation of pharmaceutical trademarks depicting the commonplace image of a “sage” or “yogi” figure. The decision reinforces the principle that truly generic or commonplace trade imagery cannot be monopolized by any single brand owner.

Trademark Revocation Saga:

The legal battle stemmed from a rival firm’s successful applications in 2014 to cancel six registrations owned by a company for marks featuring a cross-legged, robed figure representing a “sage” or “yogi”. These covered products like cough medicines, anti-itch powders and medicated talcum powders.

The Trademark Board eventually ordered revocation of four registrations in 2016 while allowing two stylized versions to survive. It ruled the four canceled marks comprising essentially just the “sage/yogi” image lacked inherent distinctiveness under Section 7(1) of the Trademarks Act. The depiction was deemed a prohibited common trade representation for medicinal products under a 2006 Registrar’s Notification.

The registration holder appealed, with mixed results at the Intellectual Property & International Trade Court and Specialized Appeals Court. Both lower instances had reinstated the four revocations, accepting arguments that the designed figure itself established acquired distinctiveness through extensive prior use as per Section 7(3) of the Act. Ultimately, the Supreme Court’s IP Division took a stringent view agreeing with the initial Board finding of banned common imagery. 

blue white orange and brown container van

Key Findings:

The Court characterized the “yogi/sage” illustration as the marks’ essential and predominant feature matching the prohibited Registrar’s listing, rather than any accessory wording or stylization. It held Section 7(3) on acquiring distinctiveness through use was inapplicable. This provision only allowed non-inherently distinctive word marks a chance at registration based on marketplace recognition – not device marks like designed imagery.

Since the four revoked registrations consisted of essentially just the prohibited “sage” image lacking inherent distinctiveness, their acceptance for registration violated Section 7(1)’s standards ab initio and was improper. While a 2016 amendment did extend Section 7(3)’s acquired distinctiveness avenue to certain device marks going forward, this could not be applied retroactively to pre-existing registrations under transitional rules.

Preserving Competition in dismissing the appeal, the Supreme Court’s judgment reinforces the principle that common imagery, symbols, or depictions already used and associated with an entire product category cannot be monopolized through trademark registration. This preserves fair competition and avoids causing public deception regarding source.

The Supreme Court reaffirmed the narrow exceptions where acquired distinctiveness through extensive prior use can secure trademark rights over marks initially lacking inherent distinctiveness. However, the evidentiary threshold remains stringent, especially for device marks mimicking common trade imagery.

The precedent guides trademark owners and examiners on the registrability limits for common symbols, packaging trade dress, or other imagery already widespread within a particular industry segment. It could benefit smaller businesses by preventing large competitors from locking up monopoly rights over commonplace imagery integral to product marketing.

As Thailand increasingly integrates into global IP norms, this ruling aligns its trademark policies closer to preserving free competition and preventing monopolization of generic imagery that should remain in the public domain for all to use.

Author: Panisa Suwanmatajarn, Managing Partner.

Other Articles

on by

Supreme Court Ruling Opens Door for Personal Names as Trademarks in Thailand

In a groundbreaking judgment, Thailand’s Supreme Court, decision no. 2652/2566, has cleared the way for personal names to be registered as trademarks, marking a significant shift in the country’s intellectual property landscape. The ruling stems from a long-standing legal battle over the application to register the prestigious name “Pierre Cardin” as a trademark.

The Case History:

The plaintiff believed to be an entity associated with the late French fashion icon Pierre Cardin, had applied to register his personal name as a trademark in Thailand back in 2013. However, the Trademark Registrar rejected the application, citing lack of distinctiveness under Section 7 of the Trademark Act B.E. 2534 (1991).

This kicked off a series of appeals, with the Trademark Board and the Intellectual Property and International Trade Court (CIPITC) upholding the rejection. The CIPITC’s interpretation was that personal names could only be registered if displayed in a special character, as per the legal requirement for “trade names.”

Supreme Court’s Ruling


The case eventually reached the Supreme Court’s IP Division, which delivered a groundbreaking ruling that could open floodgates for personal names and surnames to be trademarked more easily in Thailand. Examining Section 7(1) which outlines what constitutes a “distinctive” mark, the Supreme Court made a crucial distinction. It ruled that the phrase “displayed in a special character” only applies to “trade names” and not to “first names and surnames of natural persons which are not ordinary surnames.”

As such, the Supreme Court found that “Pierre Cardin” inherently serves to distinguish the goods bearing that name from others, by virtue of being an uncommon personal name not directly descriptive of the products. No special display of the name was required to consider it a distinctive trademark.

vivienne westwood neon sign on a clothing store in nagoya

Implications and Looking Ahead:

This precedent-setting ruling overturns decades of narrower interpretation that demanded personal names meet more stringent criteria like special display properties to be registered as trademarks in Thailand. It opens up immense branding opportunities, allowing famous personalities, celebrities, artists and even ordinary individuals to capitalize on the name recognition and goodwill associated with their personal names and surnames across product lines.

However, the Supreme Court’s emphasis on “not an ordinary surname” suggests scrutiny will remain for very common names. Trademark applicants may still need to demonstrate how a personal name is distinctive and not merely descriptive of the products.

As Thailand increasingly integrates with the global intellectual property regime, this ruling aligns its trademark laws closer to more permissive jurisdictions that routinely allow personal names as trademarks based on acquired distinctiveness through use. The case has now been remanded back to the Trademark Office to proceed with the registration of the iconic “Pierre Cardin” mark, in what is likely to inspire a fresh wave of personal name trademark filings by brand owners in Thailand.

Author: Panisa Suwanmatajarn, Managing Partner.

Other Articles

on by

Thai Supreme Court Provides Guidance on Grounds for Courts to Annul Arbitral Awards

The Thai Supreme Court, Decision No. 7150/2561, has issued an important decision clarifying the scope of arbitral authority in construction contract disputes. The case involved a contractor’s challenges to an arbitration award over incomplete work and claims for additional compensation on a large development project.

The key facts are that in August 2011, the contractor entered into a 500 million baht subcontract to construct and install a decorative water fountain feature and landscape lighting for the convention center project. As work progressed, the contractor alleged there were oral agreements to perform substantial additional work upgrading the golf course facilities.

However, in March 2013 before this additional golf work was fully rendered, the project owner terminated the subcontract citing deficiencies in the contractor’s original fountain and lighting work scope. The parties then proceeded to arbitration as required under their contract’s dispute resolution clause.

The arbitration tribunal issued an award holding the contractor liable for 588,113.82 baht in damages, representing costs the owner incurred to remedy deficient work after termination. The tribunal rejected the contractor’s claim for separate compensation for the additional golf course work, finding there was no written agreement as contractually required to expand the work scope.

icra iflas piled book

On appeal, the Supreme Court made the following key rulings:

The arbitrators properly exercised their jurisdiction over disputes concerning the admitted water fountain and lighting work scope under the subcontract’s broad arbitration clause. However, the tribunal exceeded its authority by deciding the contractor’s claim for the additional golf course work, which required a separate written agreement to incorporate it into the arbitrable subcontract per legal requirements. This portion of the award was annulled as violating Thai arbitration law’s public policy grounds.

The intellectual property rights claim over the fountain’s logo design was correctly rejected as already compensated under the design services fees in the original subcontract pricing. The fact that the contract was terminated did not void the arbitration clause, permitting the tribunal to award damages relating to deficient completed work despite the termination.

The Supreme Court therefore upheld the core findings while annulling the award only as to the unincorporated additional golf work claim.

Key Takeaway:

This Supreme Court decision provides useful guidance on grounds for Thai courts to annul arbitral awards and the need for arbitral tribunals to carefully examine whether alleged additional work was properly incorporated in writing into the underlying arbitration agreement’s scope. Arbitrators exceed their jurisdiction by deciding claims over work that was not validly added to the contracted scope through proper documentation, which can result in awards being annulled on public policy grounds under Thai arbitration law. Clear documentation of any change orders authorizing extra work is crucial for the arbitrability of claims seeking compensation for that additional scope.

Author: Panisa Suwanmatajarn, Managing Partner.

Other Articles

on by

Navigating the Complexities of Trade/Service Mark Registration: Valuable Lessons from a Court Ruling

In a pivotal court decision concerning trade/service mark registration, the Supreme Court, decision nos. 2465-2469/2563, delved into the intricate nuances of assessing the distinctiveness of proposed marks. The case centered around NTT DATA, a company seeking to register its composite trade/service mark comprising the acronym “NTT” (derived from Nippon Telegraph and Telephone, part of the company’s name) followed by the word “DATA.” The court’s comprehensive analysis offers invaluable lessons for businesses and legal professionals alike.

Assessing Distinctiveness: A Holistic Approach

The court emphasized the need for a holistic assessment of the proposed mark’s overall impression. While the acronym “NTT” alone did not directly describe the goods/services, it was deemed the dominant and inherently distinctive element. Crucially, the addition of the descriptive term “DATA” did not negate the mark’s distinctiveness. This underscores the importance of evaluating the collective impact of all components rather than dissecting them individually.

Composite Marks: Synergy and Composition

When a mark comprises multiple elements, the court’s examination extends beyond individual components to their synergistic composition. The juxtaposition of elements, even if one is descriptive, can create a distinctive overall impression, particularly if the dominant component is inherently distinctive. This principle highlights the need for a nuanced approach when assessing composite marks.

Descriptiveness and Contextual Relevance:

The court recognized that the descriptiveness of a term can vary depending on the specific goods/services involved. While the word “DATA” is generally descriptive, the court acknowledged that its descriptiveness could be mitigated in contexts related to data processing or similar goods/services. This contextual consideration is crucial, as it prevents overly broad generalizations and promotes a tailored assessment.

black android smartphone on top of white book

Burden of Proof: Applicant’s Responsibility

The court’s decision clarified that the burden of proof lies squarely with the applicant to demonstrate the distinctiveness of the proposed mark. Merely combining elements does not automatically confer distinctiveness. Applicants must provide convincing evidence and argumentation to support their claim of distinctiveness, considering the mark’s overall impression and the specific goods/services involved.

Procedural Adherence: A Multi-Stage Journey

While the court found the mark potentially registrable, it acknowledged that the registration process involves multiple stages governed by established procedures. The court’s ruling did not automatically grant registration but instructed the trademark office to continue examining the application per the prescribed legal framework. This highlights the importance of adhering to all procedural requirements and respecting the multi-stage nature of the registration process.

In essence, this court decision serves as a guiding beacon for businesses and legal professionals navigating the intricate landscape of trade/service mark registration. It underscores the nuanced approach required when assessing composite marks, considering factors such as overall impression, contextual relevance, and the specific goods/services involved. Additionally, it reinforces the applicant’s burden of proof and the necessity of adhering to established procedural requirements throughout the registration process.

By internalizing these lessons, stakeholders can better navigate the complexities of trade/service mark registration, safeguarding their intellectual property rights while fostering a fair and consistent application of trademark laws.

Author: Panisa Suwanmatajarn, Managing Partner.

Other Articles

on by

USTR Annual Review on Thailand Intellectual Property Protection 2023

The Office of the United States Trade Representative (USTR) conducts an annual review of intellectual property (IP) protection and enforcement in U.S. trading partners worldwide. Countries are categorized based on their IP infringement rates, with priority given to addressing issues in countries with high rates of infringement (Priority Foreign Country: PFC), i.e. countries on the Priority Watch List (PWL), and countries on the Watch List (WL).

Thailand was previously categorized as a country on the Priority Watch List from 2007 to 2017. However, on December 15, 2017, the USTR upgraded Thailand’s IP protection and enforcement status to the Watch List. Currently, Thailand remains on the Watch List along with 22 other countries. The USTR’s Notorious Markets Report for 2022 identified the MBK Center as the only market in Thailand with a high rate of IP infringement.

The USTR’s report acknowledges that Thailand has made progress in improving IP protection and enforcement. Efforts have been made to seize counterfeit and pirated goods, combat the sale of counterfeit goods online, and enhance cooperative measures among governmental agencies. Notable proceedings and plans by governmental agencies include:

  1. Amendment to the Copyright Act B.E. 2537 (1994) to strengthen copyright owners’ rights, allowing them to initiate takedowns or block access to copyright infringement contents on the internet. The amendment also extended the lifespan of photography protection and facilitated Thailand’s accession to the World Intellectual Property Organization (WIPO) Copyright Treaty (WCT).
  2. The development of the Thai Customs IPR Recordation System (TCIRs), an online system where right holders can submit trademark and copyright information to customs officials for verification of authenticity in imported, exported, or transit goods.
  3. Cooperative measures among governmental authorities and organizations to combat the sale and advertisement of counterfeit goods online and online piracy. A Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) has been established between right holders and advertising associations to restrict support for websites that infringe on intellectual property.

However, the USTR report also highlights concerns and areas of improvement. The USTR recommends amending the Patent Act B.E. 2522 (1979) to streamline the patent registration process, reduce patent backlog and pendency, and prepare for accession to the Hague Agreement. Additionally, an amendment to the Copyright Act B.E. 2537 (1994) is suggested to address enforcement obstacles and enable Thailand’s accession to the WIPO Performances and Phonograms Treaty (WPPT).

security logo

The Department of Intellectual Property (DIP) is aware of the USTR’s concerns and is taking action to address them. The DIP is currently in the process of redrafting the Patent Act B.E. 2522 (1979)  to provide additional protection for right holders, improve the registration process, and align with global standards for accession to the Hague Agreement. Similarly, the Copyright Act B.E. 2537 (1994)  is undergoing legislative amendments for Thailand’s accession to the WPPT. Enforcement issues are being addressed through cooperative measures among 17 governmental authorities responsible for seizing and enforcing the law against IP infringers.

Despite ongoing efforts at the administrative, policy planning, and enforcement levels, intellectual property infringement remains a significant challenge in Thailand. The DIP is committed to resolving this issue and working towards removing Thailand from the Watch List countries.

Please note that the information provided is based on the USTR’s Special 301 Report 2023 and other relevant published sources.

Author: Panisa Suwanmatajarn, Managing Partner.

Other Articles

on by

Overcoming Geographic Barriers: Thai Court Allows Registration of Well-Known Trademarks

For decades, obtaining a trademark registration in Thailand for a geographic name or a product’s own shape was an uphill battle. The country’s Trademark Act B.E. 2534 (1991) and its amendments prohibited registration of marks lacking inherent distinctiveness, including geographic terms and product designs or shapes that merely describe the goods themselves. However, two decisions from Thailand’s Supreme Court have charted a potential path forward for brand owners to secure rights in such non-traditional marks.

The first hurdle in 2018, the Supreme Court, decision no. 4216/2561, appeared to shut the door on registering geographic names as trademarks in a case involving the city name “MILWAUKEE” for tools. The plaintiff had sought to register the MILWAUKEE mark based on extensive use, advertising, and sales in Thailand over many years.

However, the court found the evidence submitted – promotional materials, sales invoices, and website printouts – was insufficient to prove the geographic term had acquired distinctiveness as a source identifier in the minds of Thai consumers. Merely showing promotional and sales documents was not enough. Under the Trademark Act and Ministry of Commerce Regulations, the plaintiff needed to conclusively demonstrate that the geographic name alone had become a well-known brand for its specific products through longstanding, widespread exposure and consumer recognition across Thailand. The court noted the evidence did not specify the start date of use, sales volumes over time, geographic extent of sales, or how long the promotional activities had continued. Without such details, the court could not infer that Thai consumers would perceive “MILWAUKEE” as a brand rather than just a city name.

An Opening for Well-Known Marks

Just a few years later, the Supreme Court’s specializing in Intellectual Property and International Trade Court, decision no. 5449/2549, took a different stance in a case brought by a fruit producer. This time, the court approved the registration of a trademark containing both the geographic term “WASHINGTON” and a stylized apple design for the company’s fresh apple products (Class 31).

On its face, the evidence submitted was similar to the previous case – advertising and promotional materials, sales data, product packaging samples, and documentation of trademark registrations in other countries. However, the court found this evidence compelling enough to meet Thailand’s stringent acquired distinctiveness requirements.

man passing an apple store

Key factors that appeared persuasive included:

Testimony from the company’s witnesses that Thai consumers did indeed recognize the “WASHINGTON and Stylized Apple” trademark as uniquely identifying the branded apples as distinct from competitors’ products.

Proof of decades of extensive nationwide promotional efforts across Thailand, with details on advertising expenditures. Massive sales volumes and retail sales values showing the branded apples were consistently available through major supermarket chains in all provinces over more than 30 years. Physical packaging examples demonstrating how the trademark was prominently displayed on bags/labels as the primary brand identifier. Taken together, this evidence persuaded the court that the combined “WASHINGTON and Stylized Apple Design” trademark had cumulatively acquired strong source-identifying capacity among Thai consumers, despite incorporating non-distinctive components individually. Even though geographic names and representations of the product itself typically cannot be registered alone, the court found this well-known composite mark had achieved distinctiveness through sustained, widespread use and marketing over decades.

Charting a path forward these two Supreme Court decisions indicate that while registering geographic names and product shapes/designs remains very challenging in Thailand, it is possible for brands to secure trademark rights in such non-traditional, non-inherently distinctive marks. However, the evidentiary requirements are stringent – brand owners must amass overwhelming evidence that the applied-for mark has achieved widespread consumer recognition and association as a source identifier through sustained, nationwide use and intensive promotional campaigns over many years.

Critically, the evidence must specify details like the start date of use, annual advertising expenditures, sales volumes and values over time, the geographic scope of sales/marketing, and consistent trademark usage on packaging/labeling. Simply submitting generic advertisements and invoices is unlikely to be sufficient.

For foreign brand owners exporting products to Thailand featuring geographic and product shape/design elements, this underscores the importance of implementing a long-term, nationwide branding strategy from the outset. Consistent trademark use, major advertising investments, physical branding on packaging, and meticulous recordkeeping of marketing spend and sales data can help pave the way for enhanced trademark rights and enforcement, even for non-conventional marks that Thai authorities may initially view as non-distinctive.

Author: Panisa Suwanmatajarn, Managing Partner.

Other Articles

on by

Navigating Generative AI’s Impact on Intellectual Property

What is Generative AI

Generative AI, or generative artificial intelligence, is a type of AI that can create new content and ideas, such as text, images, videos, music, and more. It works by learning patterns and structures from existing data and then using that knowledge to generate new content that has similar characteristics. For example, it can be used to create chatbots for customer service, generate realistic images, write text like emails or resumes, and even suggest new ideas for product development. Generative AI is like a creative assistant that can help businesses and individuals come up with new and innovative content, making tasks easier and more efficient.

What benefits of using Generative AI are

Generative AI therefore offers a multitude of advantages for companies, encompassing increased efficiency by automating tasks that would otherwise demand manual labor, enhanced quality of generated content, quicker results compared to manual labor, cost savings, improved decision-making, heightened creativity, and enhanced customer experience through personalization.

In terms of intellectual property (IP) rights and content creation, Generative AI presents a myriad of potential benefits for companies. Firstly, organizations can leverage generative AI to develop custom models trained on their own institutional knowledge and intellectual property, allowing seamless collaboration between knowledge workers and the software in a familiar language. Moreover, generative AI empowers businesses to scale up their creative output, automatically producing captivating ad copy, visuals, and video content, thus reducing the need for extensive manual creative work. This not only enhances creativity but also leads to significant time and cost savings, streamlining content creation processes and reducing the resources required for manual content generation. Additionally, generative AI can augment workers’ abilities to draft, edit, and classify content, thereby optimizing talent within the organization. Furthermore, as a company’s AI maturity grows, generative AI can open new revenue channels, contributing to overall growth and innovation. However, it is crucial for companies to navigate the legal implications and ensure compliance with IP laws when integrating generative AI into their content creation and innovation processes.

elderly man thinking while looking at a chessboard

Generative AI and Intellectual Property (IP) Issues

Generative AI, which uses data lakes and question snippets to recover patterns and relationships, is becoming more prevalent in creative industries. However, the legal implications of using generative AI are still unclear, particularly in relation to copyright infringement, ownership of AI-generated works, and unlicensed content in training data. Courts are currently trying to establish how intellectual property laws should be applied to generative AI, and several cases have already been filed around the globe.

While courts and lawmakers in various countries grapple with complex cases blurring the lines between human and machine creation, the EU is on the verge of implementing the world’s first comprehensive law on artificial intelligence. The EU Artificial Intelligence Act aims to regulate the use of AI in the EU to ensure better conditions for its development and use. It covers AI systems placed on the market, put into service, or used in the EU, including those offered by global vendors to EU users. The Act categorizes AI systems into three risk categories and imposes specific legal requirements on high-risk applications. AI systems posing unacceptable risks, such as those considered a threat to people, are banned. As for Thailand, she is catching up with EU. Government agencies are developing draft legislations to government AI. Soon we will see what they are.

In a separate development, the Beijing Internet Court made a landmark ruling endorsing copyrights for AI-generated artwork. This decision contrasts with recent USPTO rulings, which did not uphold copyrights for AI-generated creations. The ruling sets a legal precedent that could encourage more innovation and exploration in this field, acknowledging the potential of AI in creative industries and emphasizing the need to view such creations on a case-by-case basis, considering the unique blend of AI and human input. [Source: Judgment of the first case of copyright infringement of AI-generated images (qq.com)]

Amidst the rapid advancement of generative AI technology, a narrative unfolds with key intellectual property (IP) issues at its core.

Copyright Infringement: Within the intricate web of generative AI lies a concern regarding copyright infringement and rights of use. The uncertain ownership of AI-generated works further complicates matters, raising questions about the presence of unlicensed content in training data. As courts grapple with the application of intellectual property laws to Generative AI, the landscape remains nebulous, awaiting clarity.

Ownership of AI-Generated Works: The heart of the debate revolves around the ownership of AI-generated content. A palpable uncertainty looms, highlighting a significant concern for policymakers. As stakeholders navigate this uncharted territory, the quest for clarity on ownership rights intensifies, shaping the trajectory of IP discourse.

pink white black purple blue textile web scripts

Patenting AI-Generated Inventions: In the realm of AI-generated art and inventions, a hostile legal landscape awaits. Amidst diverging perspectives, suggestions emerge to future-proof the patent system by carving out a distinct category dubbed AI-IP. With proposed patents potentially lasting for shorter durations than their traditional counterparts, the quest for equilibrium between innovation and protection unfolds.

Judicial Understanding and Interpretation: As generative AI blurs the boundaries between human and machine creation, judges find themselves embroiled in complex cases. Navigating this terrain demands a profound understanding of both IP laws and the intricacies of AI systems. The evolving narrative underscores the imperative for judicial actors to deepen their understanding of AI-related issues, shaping the contours of legal interpretation.

Disclosure and Representation: Beneath the surface of AI-generated output lies a concern regarding its representation. The ethical imperative of honest disclosure weighs heavily, challenging users to navigate the Copyright Office’s requirements diligently. As the narrative unfolds, the need for transparency in representing AI-generated content as distinct from human creation becomes increasingly apparent, shaping the discourse surrounding disclosure and representation.

In this narrative, the evolving landscape of generative AI intertwines with key IP issues, painting a complex portrait of technological innovation and legal intricacies. As stakeholders navigate this dynamic terrain, the narrative unfolds, illuminating the path forward in the pursuit of balance between innovation and protection in the digital age.

Author: Panisa Suwanmatajarn, Managing Partner.

Other Articles

on by

Will AI bring the death to IP enforcement work?

In this digital-centric era, many thriving businesses rely on intellectual property (IP) as crucial assets in selling their products and services and maintaining and promoting their brand image. Consequently, business owners must dedicate resources to protecting their IPs and taking appropriate action against IP infringement.

The recent emergence of accessible artificial intelligence (AI) tools has opened up the possibility for the automation of this undertaking, raising concerns about whether such tools will replace the enforcement of IPs by humans.

Traditional enforcement of IP

In Thailand, IP infringement is considered as both civil and criminal offense. IPs are primarily governed by the Copyright Act B.E. 2537 (1994) (as amended) (the “Copyright Act”), Trademark Act B.E. 2534 (1991) (as amended) (the “Trademark Act”), and Patent Act B.E. 2522 (as amended) (the “Patent Act”).

Under these laws, an IP owner can initiate a civil proceeding by filing a complaint with the Intellectual Property and International Trade Court (the “IP and IT Court”). Also, an IP owner can initiate a criminal proceeding by filing a complaint to either the IP and IT Court or the police.

man couple people woman

What AI can help in IP enforcement work?

The traditional IP enforcement process can be an intricate process that is costly and timely for business owners. In monitoring IP infringement in online platforms, IP owners can benefit significantly from incorporating AI tools.Using a natural language processing (NLP) algorithm, AI can understand human language structure, allowing it to recognize similarities and patterns in text. Similar algorithms also exist for recognizing patterns in images and videos.

With this technology, specific sets of data can be used to train AI and enable it to identify similarities in copyrighted works, spot unauthorized use of trademarks, and sort through online marketplace listings of counterfeit goods. Following this, human personnel can review the evidence obtained and take further action, making infringement monitoring less timely and costly and more extensive.

In addition, large language model (LLM) AIs such as ChatGPT, which are capable of generating original written content based on training data, can be developed for use in specific contexts such as in legal writing. Provided that further developments improve its reliability, this technology can further aid legal counsel in legal research and preparing documents in court procedures relating to IP litigation.

Can AI replace traditional enforcement of IP by humans?

While AI can significantly reduce the workload in smaller infringement cases and assist in issuing takedown notices, it cannot completely replace human involvement in more complex cases involving legal procedures. AI tools for identifying online content infringement do not cover cases outside of online platforms, such as counterfeit goods or unauthorized use of copyright work in physical markets. Legal counsels play a vital role in coordinating with enforcement officials, analysing IP laws and preparing legal arguments. Although AI can make these tasks easier, the complexity of IP enforcement procedures still requires a high degree of human involvement.

robot pointing on a wall

AI serves as an assistive tool that accurately and efficiently performs resource-intensive tasks like infringement monitoring. However, AI’s lack of self-sufficiency and the intricate nature of IP enforcement mean that, for the time being, human-led enforcement of IP remains essential. AI can enhance the fight against counterfeiting, but human expertise and judgment are still crucial, especially in ambiguous cases or those lacking context.

In conclusion, AI tools can assist IP owners in tracking down and taking action against IP infringement, but they cannot replace the human-led enforcement of IP. AI serves as a powerful tool in IP enforcement, but human involvement, particularly that of legal counsels, remains vital in navigating the complex procedures associated with IP enforcement.

Author: Panisa Suwanmatajarn, Managing Partner.

Other Articles

on by

Aligning with the WPPT: Proposed Amendments to the Copyright Act for Strengthening Copyright Protection

Introduction:

The proposed amendments to the Copyright Act B.E. 2537 (1994) aim to align Thailand with the WIPO Performance and Phonograms Treaty (WPPT) and fulfill its obligations under the Regional Comprehensive Economic Partnership (RCEP). The Department of Intellectual Property (DIP) is currently drafting the amendments, known as the “draft Copyright Act,” with the primary objective of providing clarity in the application of the law and enhancing the protection of copyright owners’ rights, specifically the rights of performers. These amendments seek to elevate the level of copyright infringement protection and accommodate technological advancements. To ensure broad stakeholder input, the DIP has initiated a public hearing on the draft Copyright Act from 18th January B.E. 2567 (2024) to 18th February B.E. 2567 (2024).

Enhancing Definitions and Aligning with the WPPT:

The draft Copyright Act introduces improved definitions, including sound recordings, performers, communication to the public, and publication. These updated definitions aim to elucidate and refine the application of the legislation, aligning it with the provisions of the WPPT. For instance, the definition of “performer” is expanded to encompass role-play and the presentation of artistic and cultural works, thereby supporting Thai artists and cultural heritage. “Sound recording” is clarified to include recordings in any material form or without supporting materials. The definitions of “communication to the public” and “publication” are broadened to encompass works uploaded to the internet. These amendments ensure that certain types of copyright protection commence upon internet upload, elucidating the beginning of intellectual property protection.

Strengthening Performers’ Rights:

The draft Copyright Act also bolsters the rights of performers, including the right to be identified as the original author, the right to rectify the attribution of authorship, and the right to protection against derogatory treatment, even after transferring copyright to an assignee. These protections persist throughout the lifetime of the creator. Performers are granted exclusive rights over their performances, such as duplication, sale of originals or copies, making works accessible to the public (including on the Internet), rental of originals or copied works, and the right to equitable compensation for performances uploaded to the internet.

Enhanced Remedies and Criminal Provisions:

In civil and criminal cases, copyright owners and performers will have the option to request the court to destroy or render infringing materials unusable and offer an alternative to pursuing criminal charges. The removal of the minimum penalty for copyright infringement and infringement of performers’ rights grants the court discretion in determining minimum sentencing, ensuring that criminal punishment is proportionate to the offenses committed. This amendment curbs the practice of extracting concessions from individuals who unintentionally infringe copyright.

Economic Benefits and Adaptation to the Digital Age:

By enacting these amendments, Thailand aspires to become a WPPT associate, which will bring economic benefits and attract domestic and foreign investors. The amendments also create opportunities for sound recorders and performers in Thailand to reap the rewards of their work while ensuring that the legislation adapts to the digital age, where the internet plays a significant role in disseminating creative content.

Conclusion:

The proposed amendments to the Copyright Act B.E. 2537 (1994) in Thailand reflect a commitment to strengthen copyright protection and align with international standards, particularly the provisions of the WPPT. By providing clarity, enhancing performers’ rights, introducing effective remedies, and adapting to the digital landscape, these amendments aim to foster a robust and balanced copyright framework. As the public hearing on the draft Copyright Act progresses, it presents an opportunity for stakeholders to contribute their perspectives and shape the evolution of copyright law in Thailand.

Author: Panisa Suwanmatajarn, Managing Partner.

Other Articles

on by

Bill to Amend the Geographical Indications Protection Act

Introduction

The Geographical Indications Protection Act B.E. 2546 (2003) (GI Act) is a pivotal legislation that promotes, safeguards, and adds value to Thai geographically indicated products. Geographically Indicated Products (GI Products) are goods whose specific quality, reputation, or characteristics are directly linked to and attributed to a particular geographical origin indicated by a name, symbol, or other protected terms under Geographical Indication (GI) laws. Thailand, being home to numerous GI Products such as Nont durians, Phetchabun sweet tamarinds, Chaiya salted eggs, and Hom Mali Thung Kula Rong-hai rice, must ensure the enforceability of the GI Act to protect the biological diversity, unique environment, and other features that contribute to the creation of products bearing the distinct characteristics of their origin.

In light of this, a bill has been proposed to amend the GI Act, with a focus on enhancing the credibility of geographical indicators through quality control systems, distinctive symbols, expedited registration processes, and refined protection scopes. These amendments also seek to align GI registrations with international agreements, emphasizing their significance in adapting Thailand’s legal framework to the evolving landscape of GI protection.

Proposed Amendments to the GI Act

The proposed amendments to the GI Act in 2024 represent a significant step forward in refining and strengthening the legal framework governing GI in Thailand. Notable adjustments include:

  • Redefining the definition of “Geographical Indication” and proposing additional defined terms such as “Interested Party,” “Product Producer,” and “Trader”.
  • Introducing additional prohibited characteristics in the registration process.
  • Allowing GI registration under international agreements’ requirements.
  • Amending the details for GI registration, including the requirement of a control system to check the quality of geographical indications.
  • Changing the objection period from 90 days to 60 days and specifying reasons for objection according to the provisions of the Act and the Ministerial Regulations.
  • Including the GI mark as a protected mark under the Act.
  • Changing penalties from criminal fines to disciplinary fines.

Furthermore, the amendments establish a rigorous quality control and inspection system to ensure that registered geographical indications consistently meet specified standards. The expanded regulatory framework also includes provisions for the use and authorization of GI symbols, emphasizing the importance of controlled and accurate representation. These amendments not only strengthen the protection of geographical indications but also highlight Thailand’s commitment to upholding the integrity of its unique regional products in the global marketplace.

Registration in Thailand

The registration of GIs in Thailand is governed by comprehensive criteria outlined in the GI Act. To qualify for registration, a GI must not be a common name for the associated product and should align with public order, morality, and state policies. Foreign GIs seeking protection in Thailand must provide clear evidence of their protected status in their country of origin, demonstrating continuous use up to the application date. The applicant must have the rightful eligibility to apply for GI registration, and the application should encompass detailed information on the quality, reputation, or other characteristics of the product’s geographical origin.

gray concrete road between palm trees

Disciplinary Fines for Violations of the Act

Engaging in activities prohibited by the GI Act carries the risk of substantial disciplinary fines, with a maximum fine of two hundred thousand baht. Violations include deceptive use of GIs to mislead consumers about the true origin of products, potentially causing harm to other traders. The GI Act also imposes punishment on actions that undermine the quality, reputation, or other characteristics associated with the geographical origin of a product. Whether it involves misleading representations, false claims, or any act detrimental to the GIs of products, the legislation aims to maintain the authenticity and credibility of these indicators.

Conclusion

In conclusion, the proposed amendments to Thailand’s GI Act of 2003 signify a significant step toward aligning the legal framework with contemporary needs. These changes introduce quality control measures, distinctive symbols, expedited registration processes, and refined protection provisions to enhance the credibility of geographical indicators on a global scale. Prominent examples like “Champagne” and “Parmigiano-Reggiano” demonstrate the broader impact of GIs on cultural identity and economic vitality. These protections serve as vital tools for maintaining authenticity and ensuring quality assurance. The stringent criteria for registration underscore Thailand’s dedication to maintaining the integrity of the system, protecting intellectual property, and reinforcing the credibility of GIs.

Author: Panisa Suwanmatajarn, Managing Partner.

Other Articles