Page 30 - วารสารกฎหมาย ศาลอุทธรณ์คดีชํานัญพิเศษ

วารสารกฎหมาย ศาลอุทธรณ์คดีชำานัญพิเศษ

infringement. Since parallel imports involve genuine products—while the provision
46
refers to counterfeits or infringing products—it is supported that the principle of

international exhaustion applies to the importation of genuine goods, even though the
term is not explicitly mentioned. In addition, neither the Intellectual Property Code of

the Philippines nor the Philippine courts have addressed the issues relating to goods of
materially different qualities for different markets thus far. Similarly, Thailand also
has no express legislation regarding the exhaustion of trademark rights. Nevertheless,
47
the Thai Central Intellectual Property and International Trade Court and the Thai
48
Supreme Court have embraced international trademark exhaustion in their decisions.
49
In particular, a 1999 decision stated the Thai Central Intellectual Property and
International Trade Court allowed the parallel import of genuine goods bearing the same
mark from Singapore to Thailand, stating trademark rights are internationally exhausted

because trademark owners have already fairly received rewards from the first sale of
the goods. This decision was affirmed by the Supreme Court of Thailand in 2000.
50
On the other hand, Cambodia and Lao PDR both adopted a system of national
trademark exhaustion. Article 11(c) of the Cambodian Law provides that “[t]he rights
51
conferred by registration of a mark shall not extend to acts in respect of articles which

have been put on the market in the Kingdom of Cambodia by the registered owner or
with his consent.” Similarly, Lao PDR’s Law on Intellectual Property states, in Article
52
53
57(3)(1), that “no individual or organization ... [other] than the trademark owner” is

46 Id. at art. 166.
47 Trademark Act, B.E. 2543, Section 44 (1991) (consolidated as of 2000) as amended up to Trademark Act
B. E (No. 3) B.E. 2559 (2016) (Thailand). See Vichai Ariyanuntaka, Exhaustion and Parallel Imports in Thailand,
in ParaLLeL ImPorts IN asIa 98–100 (Christopher Heath ed., 2004).
48 Thailand Central Intellectual Property and International Trade Court Decision No. 16/2542 (1999).
49 Thailand Supreme Court Decision No. 2817/2543 (2000).
50 Thailand Supreme Court Decision affirmed Decision No. 16/2542 (1999) in decision No.2817/2543
(2000).
51 Law Concerning Marks, Trade Names and Acts of Unfair Competition of the Kingdom of Cambodia
(2002) (Cambodia).
52 Grigoriadis, supra note 43, at 488.
53 Lao People’s Democratic Republic Intellectual Property Laws (Law No. 01/NA of Dec. 20, 2011) (Lao
PDR).

28