LEGAL PROBLEMS OF E-COMMERCE TRUSTMARKS IN THAILAND

Abstract

Thailand is one of many nations that offer e-commerce trustmark schemes to overcome the lack of trustworthiness in e-commerce transactions. However, the characteristics of Thai e-commerce trustmarks i.e. the DBD (Department of Business Development) Registered and DBD (Department of Business Development) Verified, which are both administered by the Department of Business Development (“DBD”), Ministry of Commerce, do not follow the same principles that those in developed countries follow. As there is no specific Thai law for this case, both trustmarks are registered as certification marks under the Trademark Act B.E. 2534 even though their characteristics and purposes are different from certification mark principles. Moreover, the trustmark issuance and monitoring will be considered, if e-consumers who rely on such trustmarks have suffered loss due to the negligent actions of the DBD. It is unclear whether e-consumers can make any claim against the DBD for damage when they rely on a trustmark issued by the DBD.

The purpose of this thesis, is to study the principles of e-commerce trustmarks in Thailand, the United States and European Union with a goal of setting out appropriate legal measures to revise issues associated with trustmark principles in Thailand. The method used in this thesis to achieve this includes: documentary research in textbooks; journals, statutes; government publications; newspapers; experts’ opinions; public information public on the internet and other relevant documents that have originated from Thailand, the United States and the European Union.

            The results of this thesis touch on five key issues: 1.The DBD should change its position to be as a supervisory one of trustmark principles as is the case in the U.S. and E.U., the DBD should support and oversee non-profit organizations or companies in the private sectors. 2. To protect the DBD Registered under the Trademark Act, the authorized use of the DBD Registered should be in writing and signed by the authorized persons of the DBD. 3. The DBD, as a trust service provider should be liable to the e-consumers for damage caused intentionally or negligently, if they have failed to comply with their obligations. 4. A periodic evaluation should be established as a necessary step of monitoring, as specified by McAfree and Norton. The DBD should request a reasonable fee or some funding to support improved monitoring. 5. Enforcement laws should be legislated according to the principle of the Regulation (EU) No 910/2014.