< Back to all publications

Thailand’s Trademark Monitor Programme: Proactive Brand Protection for Thai Businesses Overseas

by mirandah

Overview

Thai businesses expanding overseas face a recurring and commercially damaging risk: third parties including former distributors and competitors filing trademark applications in foreign jurisdictions that are identical or confusingly similar to established Thai marks. By the time a brand owner discovers the problem, the opposition window has often already closed.

In response, Thailand’s Department of Intellectual Property (DIP) launched the Trademark Monitor programme in March 2025. The programme monitors trademark publications in foreign IP offices and alerts Thai brand owners in time to take action. Now in its second year, Trademark Monitor has expanded both its reach and its track record.

How the Programme Works

The DIP monitors trademark gazette publications issued by foreign IP offices in ASEAN and China. When a mark that is identical or confusingly similar to a participating Thai trademark is detected during the publication stage, DIP notifies the Thai brand owner promptly.

The notification enables the owner to consider filing an opposition within the statutory deadline, which varies by country but typically falls between 60 and 90 days. The DIP’s legal specialists are available to advise on the opposition procedure applicable in each jurisdiction.

Some Key Considerations About the Programme

  • While the DIP provides monitoring, alerts, and general guidance, participants and owners who wish to file an opposition must appoint their own local counsel in the relevant jurisdiction and bear the associated legal costs. The programme does not cover the costs of opposition proceedings.
  • Early registration remains the strongest protection. The programme monitors the publication stage, which means it can only help if the foreign party files through the normal registration route. It does not address prior use claims or bad-faith filings that bypass publication. Clients with export ambitions should be advised to file proactively in target markets.
  • The programme covers ASEAN and China only. Clients with exposure in other jurisdictions the EU, US, UK, Middle East are outside the programme’s scope and require separate monitoring arrangements.
  • Distributors and former agents are a recurring risk factor. The DIP’s own data flags this pattern. Clients entering new distribution arrangements in ASEAN or China should be advised to include explicit contractual restrictions on trademark registration, alongside a proactive filing strategy in those markets.

Conclusion

The Trademark Monitor programme is a useful early-warning mechanism and a constructive step by the DIP in supporting Thai SMEs internationally.

That said, the programme is a complement to, not a substitute for, proactive trademark registration in key export markets. Thai brand owners with serious international ambitions are encouraged to file in relevant jurisdictions directly, rather than relying solely on the DIP’s monitoring safety net.