Baker McKenzie LLP

An update on the draft amendment to Thailand’s Copyright Act In brief The new draft amendment to the Thai Copyright Act has been reviewed by the Office of the Council of State (OCS) and placed for public hearing between 8 and 22 August 2025, retaining the original draft’s intention to endorse performers’ rights while offering clearer, more detailed provisions. Here’s what’s new. In more detail Casting your mind back to 2023, we issued a newsletter detailing the draft amendment to the Copyright Act (link) and its objective of harmonizing Thai copyright law with the WIPO Performances and Phonograms Treaty (WPPT). An initial round of public hearings was scheduled to follow, culminating in the Cabinet’s approval of the draft amendment and its review by the OCS. In light of this, the Department of Intellectual Property has held another public hearing on the updated draft amendment to the Copyright Act between 8 and 22 August 2025. While the key provisions from the earlier draft remain relevant, the current version introduces several notable considerations, including: Definitions: To enhance clarity and ensure adaptability to the evolving electronic and digital landscape, the draft proposes revisions to the definitions of audiovisual work, cinematography, sound recording, communication to the public, and publication. Moral rights: The draft clarifies provisions on moral rights for both authors of copyrighted works and performers, including: (i) the right to be identified, and (ii) the right to object to derogatory treatment. It also introduces a remedy for authors and performers through the publication of court decisions concerning infringement of moral rights. New scheme for performer remuneration: Under the draft, performers are entitled to equitable remuneration for the use of their commercially published sound recordings (including those made available online for on-demand access), whether through sound broadcasting or communication to the public. Users of sound recordings shall make a single payment either (a) directly to the performer, or (b) to the copyright holder, who will subsequently allocate the remuneration to the performer. Where remuneration cannot be agreed upon, the Copyright Committee is vested with the authority to determine an equitable amount. Limitation period for transfer of remuneration rights: The draft proposes limiting the transfer of the right to remuneration to a maximum period of five years, whereas the existing law does not impose such restriction. However, any assignment agreement of performers’ rights executed prior to the effective date of this amendment and still in force shall remain unaffected by this change. Destruction of infringing goods in civil cases: To provide further remedies to rights holders, the draft amendment proposes authorizing courts to consider ordering the destruction of copyright-infringing goods in civil cases at the infringer’s expense, upon the rights holder’s request. This amendment also applies to cases ongoing in the courts on the effective date of this amendment. Removal of minimum penalties: The draft proposes to remove all minimum penalties for all liabilities under the Copyright Act, allowing courts to exercise more flexible discretion when imposing penalties. Once the draft is finalized, it will proceed through the legislative process in the House of Representatives. For further information, specific inquiries, or an assessment of how this draft amendment may affect your business operations, please contact our team for tailored assistance. Contact Us Nont Horayangura Partner nont.horayangura @bakermckenzie.com Yada Viseswongsa  Senior Associate yada.viseswongsa @bakermckenzie.com Burin Saekow Associate burin.saekow @bakermckenzie.com

Introduction Over the past decade, the Thai government has launched numerous initiatives to stimulate economic growth, with a key strategy being the promotion of cooperation and investment from the private sector. Legally, such cooperation is formalized through contracts between the government and private investors. When these contracts involve the provision of public services, they may be classified under Thai law as “administrative contracts.” Despite their significance, there is no comprehensive statute governing the substantive relationship between the parties. Currently, the legal framework for administrative contracts is largely shaped by case law from the Supreme Administrative Court. Often, parties in litigation encounter precedents they were previously unaware of, making the law surrounding administrative contracts somewhat of a Pandora’s box. This article is the first in a series exploring the unique features of administrative contracts that all stakeholders should understand. It begins with an examination of the state’s prerogative to unilaterally terminate such contracts. Administrative contracts under the Thai legal system Disputes involving administrative contracts fall under the jurisdiction of the Administrative Courts. The Establishment of Administrative Courts and Administrative Court Procedure Act, B.E. 2542 (1999) (“ACA”) outlines the scope of administrative contracts for jurisdictional purposes. Section 3 of the ACA provides examples of administrative contracts, including those where at least one party is a state agency and the contract involves: (1) concession agreements, (2) public service provision, (3) public utility provision, or (4) exploitation of natural resources. The legislature intentionally left the definition open-ended to allow for further judicial and academic development. For example, in 2001, Judges of the General Assembly of Supreme Administrative Court issued Resolution No. 6/2544 (2001), which expanded the definition to include: (1) contracts allowing private parties to directly participate in public service provision, and (2) contracts containing special provisions indicating state prerogatives. State's prerogative to unilaterally terminate an administrative contract Section 3 of the ACA is the primary statutory provision addressing administrative contracts, focusing more on procedural rather than substantive aspects. This raises the question: how do administrative contracts differ substantially from ordinary contracts? The Supreme Administrative Court has addressed this question through decades of case law. The foundation of an administrative contract lies in the provision of public services. Unlike ordinary contracts, which primarily serve private interests, administrative contracts aim to ensure the delivery of public services. Disruptions to such services can have widespread societal impacts. To safeguard public interests, case law has established that the state has the authority to monitor and control the execution of administrative contracts. This includes the prerogative to unilaterally terminate a contract, even in the absence of a breach by the private party, to maintain continuity and adaptability of public services. A notable example is Supreme Administrative Court Decision No Or 292/2552 (2009), which involved a dispute over a contract granting a private party the right to manage and generate revenue from a local public port. The state later unilaterally terminated the contract, citing the need to improve efficiency in port management, despite no breach by the private party. The court upheld the state’s prerogative to terminate the contract unilaterally, provided the action served the public interest. It also affirmed the private party’s right to fair compensation for damages resulting from the termination. This precedent has been followed in numerous subsequent rulings. Further clarification was provided in Supreme Administrative Court Decision No. Or.491/2564 (2021), which outlined four circumstances under which an administrative contract may be terminated: (1) mutual consent of the parties, (2) implicitly, such as through force majeure, (3) by court order, and (4) unilaterally by the state to ensure public service provision. The court emphasized that while the state may unilaterally terminate a contract for public interest reasons, a private party may only do so with the state’s consent, implicitly, or through a court order, even in cases where the state is in breach. This distinction underscores the asymmetry in termination rights between the state and private entities. However, the state’s prerogative is not absolute. In Supreme Administrative Court Decision No. Or. 221-223/2562 (2019), the court held that in cases involving “important administrative contracts,” where unilateral termination could significantly harm public services or collective benefits, the state must seek court approval before terminating the contract. This ruling reinforces the principle that administrative law prioritizes public interest without granting the state unchecked authority. The court did not define “important administrative contracts” in detail, citing concession contracts as a general example. Each case must therefore be assessed individually. Similarly, compensation must be determined on a case-by-case basis, considering the specific circumstances involved. Conclusion In a rapidly evolving global landscape marked by social, economic and technological change, the Thai government must continuously adapt its policies and development strategies. The state’s prerogative to unilaterally terminate administrative contracts is likely to be exercised more frequently. Such actions must be grounded in legal principles that prioritize public interest. Equally important is the provision of fair compensation to private investors affected by these decisions, ensuring a balanced and equitable outcome for all parties. In the event of disputes, the Administrative Court of Thailand is empowered to assess the legality and public interest justification of the state’s actions and to determine appropriate compensation for affected private parties. Authors Paralee Techajongjintana, Partner | Dispute Resolution Teerapat Chanpiwat, Partner | Dispute Resolution Nattapat Wongsiri, Associate | Dispute Resolution Kosit Prasitveroj, Associate | Dispute Resolution

In brief In a recent ruling, Thailand’s IPIT Court dismissed a passing off claim involving a cylindrical water bottle design. The court held that the cylindrical form is functional and widely used, lacking inherent distinctiveness. Without secondary meaning, such shapes cannot be monopolized. The decision reinforces that common product forms, unless uniquely associated with a brand, are not eligible for trademark protection. In more detail  In Thailand, functional or common product shapes cannot be sought for protection as a trademark unless they have acquired secondary meaning. In a recent court decision, the Intellectual Property and International Trade Court (IPIT Court) upheld that the common shape of water bottles, which are widely used and serve functional purposes, should not be monopolized by a single entity. Background of the Case The dispute centers around the alleged infringement of a 3D trademark, specifically the cylindrical shape of a water bottle. The claimant, a renowned brand in the premium bottled water market, argued that the defendant mimicked its distinctive cylindrical design—one that the claimant had invested in by commissioning an international famous designer, had marketed globally for an extended period, and had heavily promoted through advertising—resulting in consumer confusion and potential harm to its brand reputation. Brief Arguments and Proceedings The claimant contended that their cylindrical bottle design, despite not being registered as a trademark in Thailand, should be protected under the Trademark Act B.E. 2534 (1991). They argued that the design had acquired distinctiveness through extensive use and marketing efforts, making it recognizable to consumers as associated with their brand. Consequently, the claimant asserted that the defendant's use of a similar cylindrical bottle design amounted to passing off, as it could mislead consumers into believing that the defendant's products were associated with or endorsed by the claimant. In response, the defendant argued that the cylindrical shape of their branded mineral water bottle was a common design in the industry, lacking the distinctiveness required for trademark protection. They emphasized that the shape was functional rather than serving as a source identifier. The defendant further argued that their branding elements, including logos and labels, clearly differentiated their products from those of the claimant. Therefore, the defendant maintained that their actions did not constitute passing off. Court's Decision The court ultimately ruled in favor of the defendant, dismissing the claimant's passing off claims. The court found that the claimant had never sold their goods in the claimed cylindrical-shaped bottle alone without applying their mark (brand title). Furthermore, such a cylindrical shape is considered a general three-dimensional shape commonly used for containing liquid goods. As such, the cylindrical shape alone is not sufficient for consumers to distinguish the claimant's goods from those of others. Therefore, the cylindrical shape of the claimant’s bottle, without the brand title, is not eligible for protection under the Trademark Act. Additionally, the brand titles on the claimant’s bottle and the defendant's branded mineral water bottle are significantly different, so the defendant is not liable for passing off. The ruling also emphasizes the importance of maintaining a competitive market and preventing undue restrictions on the use of common designs by a single entity. What’s the Fineline? The Thai Trademark Act provides legal protection to three-dimensional shapes as trademarks. To be eligible for trademark protection, a three-dimensional shape (mark) must be inherently distinctive. Specifically: The three-dimensional mark eligible for trademark protection must not be (i) the natural form of the goods (e.g., the shape of vegetables or fruits for selling vegetable or fruit products); (ii) a shape necessary to achieve a technical result (i.e., functional form) (e.g., the shape of a gear for gear products, a spherical shape for ball products, or the shape of a spare part for spare part products); or (iii) a shape that adds value to the goods (e.g., using gold or diamonds to decorate an otherwise ordinary container). Alternatively, the claimant must demonstrate that the mark has acquired secondary meaning through extensive use, meaning customers associate the shape with the goodwill or business reputation of the applicants or claimant over time. A well-known example of a three-dimensional mark that has acquired distinctiveness through extensive use is the Coca-Cola contour bottle. Although it was originally a functional design, over time it became so closely associated with the brand that it acquired distinctiveness and was subsequently granted trademark protection. From this instance, it is evident that common or functional product shapes are generally not eligible for protection unless they have acquired secondary meaning. This raises important questions about whether such secondary meaning can realistically be established for generic product designs or packaging—such as circular plates, square tiles, rectangular books, or oval mirrors. If so, should the owners of these shapes be entitled to prevent others from using similarly common or functional product designs? Would this hinder market competition or negatively affect consumers by enabling monopolistic pricing or limiting product choices? For more information, please contact our team. Authors • Nont Horayangura, Partner│Intellectual Property and Technology • Metas Sansuk, Associate │Intellectual Property and Technology • Burin Saekow, Associate │Intellectual Property and Technology

Baker McKenzie Thailand has moved to a new office space in One Bangkok Tower 4, marking the start of an exciting new chapter. Announced in October 2023, Baker McKenzie and One Bangkok signed a green lease contract that includes sustainability objectives as part of the agreement. The Firm's move to One Bangkok, a sustainably designed urban district located opposite Lumphini Park, aligns with our global commitment to greener our office spaces and sustainable business practices. The new office design focuses on improving the way our teams work together, enhancing the client experience, promoting sustainability, and supporting our people's wellbeing. This strategic move reflects Baker McKenzie's commitment to sustainability and strengthens our ability to better serve our clients. Wynn Pakdeejit, Managing Partner, commented: For nearly 30 years, we have continually adapted our office to meet the evolving needs of our clients and our team. With the pace of change in technology, client expectations and the business landscape, it feels like the right time to transition to a new space that would fully support our capabilities. Our new office is located within a vibrant, multi-use complex, with hotels, medical facilities, dining options and easy access to transportation in the city’s central business district. This space not only enhances convenience for our clients but also offers a sustainable environment designed to foster collaboration and well-being of our team. We are deeply grateful for our clients’ continued trust and look forward to serving them from our new home. Sorachon Boonsong, Partner, added: Baker McKenzie's much-anticipated move to One Bangkok ushers in a new chapter for the Firm after nearly 30 years at Abdulrahim Place. Our new offices are LEED for Neighbourhood Development (LEED ND) Platinum certified, demonstrating the Firm's unwavering commitment to sustainable business growth. As a premium mixed-use project in the heart of Bangkok, our new address will enhance the client experience while also facilitating closer cooperation for our people through an improved and more comfortable workspace. All this has been made possible through continued support from the Firm's valued clients, for whom we would like to express our sincerest gratitude as we continue serving them with market-leading advice.  

Overview E-sports has become popular in Thailand over the past two decades. The first e-sports tournament in Thailand was held in 2001, and apart from the aspect of professional sports and athletes, the popularity of e-sports also creates an ecosystem of businesses that revolve around it, including: Software and hardware business: In e-sports competitions and training, the games and equipment, such as computers, mobile phones, and other gaming gear used, are essential. Media business: The popularity of e-sports also evolves through live broadcasts and advertisements during e-sports competitions. Professional e-sports club: Similar to other traditional professional sports, e-sports also has professional sports clubs which are responsible for finding sponsors and sourcing income for athletes. According to the research on Thailand's digital content business, undertaken by the Digital Economy Promotion Agency of Thailand (DEPA), the gaming industry in Thailand was valued at approximately 34 billion baht in 2023, and it is estimated that the digital content business in general will continue to grow at the rate of 4 percent in the next few years. Legal status of e-sports under Thai law Despite its popularity and success in Thailand, e-sports was not recognised as a professional sport until 2021. At that time, the Professional Sports Commission of Thailand ("Sports Commission") officially recognised and announced e-sports as a professional sport, similar to other traditional sports like football, golf, and tennis. Such official recognition provides concrete protection and legal obligations to businesses and stakeholders within the industry. Now, under the current Notification of Professional Sports Commission, re: Designation of Professional Sports B.E. 2566 (2023), e-sports are finally recognised as a professional sport under the Promotion of Professional Sports Act B.E. 2556 (2013) ("Professional Sports Act"). Protection and legal obligations that apply to traditional professional sports shall be applied to stakeholders in the e-sports industry. Below are certain key protections and legal obligations for stakeholders within the e-sports industry: 1. Professional e-sports clubs and professional e-sports associations Professional e-sports clubs and professional e-sports associations are required to notify the competent authority of their operations. Those who notify the competent authority will obtain the right to use e-sports-related terminology in their club or association name, and be granted certain benefits (e.g., athlete and staff development, information on athletes, participation of national and international professional competitions, and the lending of properties of the SAT). The notified professional clubs and associations must adhere to the following key requirements, including but not limited to: (1) Entering into a contract with each of their e-sports athletes and staff, which must contain the minimum required terms (e.g., normal working hours, annual leave, and termination of employment). (2) Issuing a code of conduct for their e-sports athletes or staff. The code must include punishment for any violations. (3) Providing assurances that e-sports athletes, staff, fans or attendees of events/competitions will act in an orderly manner throughout the competition at the exhibition ground. 2. Professional e-sports athletes and staff Professional e-sports athletes and staff are required to notify the competent authority of their professional status. Similar to clubs and associations, those who notify the competent authority will obtain certain forms of protection and benefits (e.g., participation in national and international professional competitions, borrowing properties of the SAT, and the protection of contractual rights with professional e-sports clubs or associations). If any e-sports clubs and associations engage in unfair practices, professional athletes and staff can file complaints with the competent authorities. Professional e-sports athletes and staff are entitled to establish an organisation to uphold the dignity and preserve the interests of its members. 3. Organising e-sports competitions An organiser of an e-sports competition is required to notify the competent authorities of its event plan, including the distribution of interests or revenue. Competitions must be organised in accordance with professional sports standards (e.g., venue safety, maintaining order measures, health checks for athletes, facilitation of necessary medical staffs and equipment, etc.). Organisers of an e-sports competition that is in compliance with the standards can also apply for promotion and support from the SAT. 4. Match fixing of e-sports Any person that influences professional e-sports athletes to commit match fixing, or e-sports athletes that commit match fixing, shall be subject to criminal punishment under the Professional Sports Act. Any person that influences e-sports referees to provide unfair judgment, or a referee who commits unfair judgment, shall be subject to criminal punishment under the Professional Sports Act. From the early days of national competitions, to achieving international success, e-sports in Thailand has fostered an ecosystem encompassing businesses such as media, advertising and professional clubs. Legal recognition and regulatory frameworks have further solidified the status of e-sports as a professional sport, ensuring protections and obligations for professional athletes similar to other traditional sports. Based on the Thailand Investment Promotion Strategy 2023 – 2027, e-sports is presented by the Board of Investment (BOI) as one of the new areas with potential for investment opportunities in Thailand in the area of creative industry, such as software development. A qualified software development project could receive up to eight years of corporate income tax exemption privilege from the BOI. As the industry continues to expand, Thailand remains a significant player on the global e-sports stage, with promising prospects for future growth and success. Authors Nont Horayangura, Partner│Intellectual Property and Technology Teetouch Dilokgomon, Associate │Intellectual Property and Technology Chana Sooppipat, Associate │Corporate and M&A Haruthai Chaisanee, Associate │Corporate and M&A    

Baker McKenzie Thailand has successfully represented RS Public Company Limited and RS Music Co., Ltd. ("RS Group") on a pioneer transaction in Thailand's music industry, that is, the divestment of RS Group's entire music catalog to Universal Music Group and Universal Music (Thailand) Limited ("UMG Group"). The Firm, having represented RS Group in the sale of its  interests in its music catalog assets and joint venture with UMG Group in 2023, has just completed the sale of RS Group's additional stakes to UMG Group, with a total value of USD 65 million. Led by Partner Nuchaya Timrat, the team advised the client from the start of the transaction, with an initial sale, followed by the additional stake. Other key team members include Partner Naris Asavathongkul and Associates Thitapa Haritaworn, Wichaya Chatsikharinthorn, Kantaphon Lotangchanintra, and Tonpan Pokeaw. The RS Group's music catalog is the second largest in Thailand, comprising more than 10,000 master recordings and 6,000 copyright ownerships, publishing rights, and licenses dating back as early as 1981. This strategic partnership is in line with RS Public Company Limited's business plan. Under the joint venture, RS Group would retain rights to 'offline' distribution channels in the music catalog while Universal Music Group would gain rights to worldwide digital distribution channels. This strategic partnership will also allow RS Group to gain significant capital to further expand its music business and explore new high-potential businesses. After proceeding with the restructuring of the music business, the client is preparing to list on the Stock Exchange of Thailand  in 2027. This transaction marks an exciting new era for entertainment M&A in the Thai market, which is one of the fastest-growing music markets in Asia. The emergence and rising popularity of digital streaming services presents opportunities to further grow the music business, such as developing new music and content formats to creating value from intellectual property in the long term, while also gaining an additional source of capital to expand into other potential businesses in the future. Baker McKenzie Advises RS Group on Divestment of Music Catalog Assets to Universal Music Group | Newsroom | Baker McKenzie  

Baker McKenzie, led by Bangkok-based M&A partners – Peerapan Tungsuwan and Panyavith Preechabhan - advised Japan-based Mitsui Co., Ltd.("Mitsui") on its strategic joint venture with Singapore-based airline service provider SATS in the food manufacturing and distribution business for approximately JPY 4 billion. When completed, Mitsui will hold a 15% stake in a joint venture company with interests in SATS subsidiaries engaged in food manufacturing and distribution in India, Thailand, China and Singapore. The deal will create a joint venture to manufacture and distribute food products in Asia and beyond. Mitsui's participation will accelerate the growth and expansion of SATS' food solutions business through targeted demand generation. Through this project, Mitsui will establish a strong presence in Asia markets for value-added food products, with a particular focus on India and China, by leveraging its expertise in global procurement of food ingredients and packaging materials, cold chain logistics, distribution and marketing. Peerapan Tungsuwan commented: "We are very privileged to have been able to support our long-standing client, Mitsui Co., Ltd., on this strategic joint venture. Our involvement exemplifies the cross-border strength of Baker McKenzie in leveraging our unique position, drawing upon our global network of 70+ offices to deliver successful and timely outcomes for our clients." Panyavith Preechabhan added: "We are pleased to be able to help Mitsui achieve its strategic objective of strengthening its presence in Asia markets and expanding its footprint in value-added manufacturing, particularly in the food and nutrition sectors, where we see exciting prospects fuelled by consumers' rising interest in health and wellbeing. We are excited to be part of the transaction and are proud of our team for delivering seamless results across multiple jurisdictions." The Baker McKenzie team consisted of the following: Bangkok: Peerapan Tungsuwan (partner, Corporate/ M&A), Panyavith Preechabhan (partner, Corporate/ M&A), Bulin Sanooj (partner, Corporate/ M&A), Noriko Sakamoto (partner, Corporate/ M&A), Nam-Ake Lekfuangfu (partner, Employment), Pinpairoh Dhiranetra (senior associate, Corporate/M&A), Yanin Nonthaleerak (associate, Corporate/M&A), Rinreda Sakiyalak (associate, Corporate/M&A) and other team members from the Bangkok office. Beijing: Scott Silverman (special counsel, M&A) and other team members from the China offices Singapore: Min-tze Lean (associate principal, M&A) and Mark Tan (senior associate, M&A) and other team members based in Singapore Hong Kong: Stephen Crosswell (partner, Competition) and other team members from the Hong Kong office Brussels: Tom Jenkins (partner, Competition).