Thailand: Ascertaining Thailand’s rules on trade marks relating to alcohol

Managing IP is part of Legal Benchmarking Limited, 4 Bouverie Street, London, EC4Y 8AX

Copyright © Legal Benchmarking Limited and its affiliated companies 2025

Accessibility | Terms of Use | Privacy Policy | Modern Slavery Statement

Thailand: Ascertaining Thailand’s rules on trade marks relating to alcohol

The Thai Alcohol Control Act (ACA) B.E. 2551(2008) sets the legal framework for restrictions on alcoholic beverages in Thailand, as well as establishing governmental bodies to oversee such restrictions, i.e. the National Alcohol Beverage Policy Committee and the Alcohol Beverage Control Committee.

Here, we summarise the relevant rules applicable to trade mark rights, drawn from Thai legislative instruments and further explore selected aspects of the relationship between trade mark rights and brand restriction laws.

Restrictions imposed

1) Manufacturers/importers of alcoholic beverages must ensure packaging and labels do not feature any graphical element that directly or indirectly advertises positive characteristics, benefits or qualities of the products.

2) Graphical elements that directly or indirectly advertise positive characteristics, benefits or qualities, as prohibited on packaging and labels, include, among others: a) cartoon images; b) elements depicting actors, musicians or artists; and c) elements inducing the public to participate in music, sportive, competitive or other recreational activities.

3) Sales are prohibited in religious institutions, public health service facilities, government buildings, boarding houses, educational establishments, gas stations and public parks.

4) Alcoholic beverage products cannot be sold through vending machines or mobile booths.

5) Sales promotions of price reduction, sample distribution, throw-ins and prizes are prohibited.

6) Communication of sounds, words or images to the public relating to alcohol for trade-inducing purposes is prohibited.

7) Communication of names or elements of alcohol products to the public for purposes of showcasing their positive characteristics or inducing their consumption is prohibited.

8) Advertising of alcohol products is only permitted in the form of communication of information and/or socially responsible ideas that do not include images of the product's packaging but may feature trade marks showing the product or its manufacturer. Such trade marks must not contain any depiction of the product or its packaging or any positive marketing visual element, and can only occupy five percent of the advertising space or time.

9) Where a mark denoting an alcoholic beverage product or its manufacturer is shown, it must have a warning message.

Trade mark implications

Section 44 of the Thai Trademark Act decrees that "a person who is registered as the owner of a trade mark shall have the exclusive right to use it for the goods for which it is registered". However, for owners of marks registered for alcoholic products, this exclusive usage right is subject to conditions imposed by the ACA and related regulations.

Trade marks registered as label marks are directly affected, as alcohol product labels and packaging are heavily regulated, especially in terms of the wide range of imagery included under the prohibited graphical element category. It is not clear why cartoon images should qualify as graphical elements that directly or indirectly advertise positive characteristics, benefits or qualities of the products, nor is the term cartoon images defined in any legislative text. Ordinary Thai usage of cartoon images suggests the term refers to any figurative graphical element.

Due to the ACA's regulatory measures, imported alcohol products bearing labels or packaging that do not conform to Thai standards, are contraband and unmarketable unless the importer replaces the original labels/packaging with compliant ones. This requirement imposes a considerable obstacle for the free movement of goods.

In terms of trade marks permitted for use in advertising alcohol products, the legal definition of positive marketing visual elements, which is prohibited in marks, is unclear. However, a strict interpretation precludes use of words such as reserve, premier cru and export blend as trade mark components.

The debate continues

Thailand maintains that the ACA and related measures are in line with Articles 2.1 and 2.2 of WIPO's Agreement on Technical Barriers to Trade and also states that labelling regulations under the ACA do not aim to "block responsible communication with regard to the showing of trade marks, names and the symbols of the company." However, strict enforcement of these controls creates concerns due to a lack of clarity within the statutory provisions and in the interpretations provided in the official guidelines. Clearer guidance would be welcomed to ensure that the trade mark rights of alcohol brand owners are not adversely affected.

Daniel Greif

Dhanasun Chumchuay

Spruson & Ferguson

Nos. 496-502 Amarin Plaza BuildingUnit Nos. 1806-1807, 18th Floor, Ploenchit Road, Lumpini Sub-District, Pathumwan District, Bangkok 10330 Thailand

Tel: +66 2 305 6893

mail.asia@spruson.com

www.spruson.com

more from across site and SHARED ros bottom lb

More from across our site

Leaders at the newly merged firm Jones Maxwell Smith & Davis reveal their plan to take on bigger firms while attracting more clients and talent
Charles Achkar, who will bring a team of two with him, said he was excited about joining ‘one of the few strong IP boutiques’
Andy Lee, head of IP at Brandsmiths and winner of the Soft IP Practitioner of the Year award, tells us why 2024 was a seminal year and why clients value brave advice
The deal to acquire MIP's parent company is expected to complete by the end of May 2025
Jinwon Chun discusses the need for vigilance, his love for iced coffee, and preparing for INTA
Karl Barnfather’s new patent practice will focus on protecting and enforcing tech innovations in the electronics, AI, and software industries
Partner Ranjini Acharya explains how her Federal Circuit debut resulted in her convincing the court to rule that machine learning technology was not patent-eligible
Paul Hastings and Smart & Biggar also won multiple awards, while Baker McKenzie picked up a significant prize
Burford Capital study finds that in-house lawyers have become more likely to monetise patents, but that their IP portfolios are still underutilised
Robert Reading and Faidon Zisis at Clarivate unpick some of the data surrounding music-related trademarks
Gift this article