Practical Problems in the Implementation of Sections 308 and 309 of the Thai Civil Procedure Code

Abstract

Thai civil procedure law faced radical change in recent years. Among other significant changes, the Act Amending the Civil Procedure Code (No. 30) B.E. 2560 (2017) that repealed and replaced “Title II – Execution of Judgments or Orders” in its entirety came into force. The new law brought legal enforcement against intellectual property (IP) and intellectual property rights (IPR) into light by recognizing the same under the newly enacted sections 308 and 309 CPC. It subsequently transpired that the new sections 308 and 309 CPC, as well as the relevant provisions under Title II, are inadequate to tackle the practical problems identified in the implementation of these sections. Such problems include, inter alia, an attempt to locate IP and IPR that have no physical form, the court that truly has jurisdiction to oversee the execution process against IP and IPR, price valuation and sale, as well as a licensing agreement that might have been existed and attached to the IP and IPR, or the goods associated to or bearing trademark or tradename of the judgment debtor. On balance, Thai civil procedure law requires immediate improvements in order to ensure that judgment creditors and the Thai legal system enjoy the full benefit of the officially recognized legal enforcement against intangible assets, of which commercial value often exceeds that of the tangible assets bearing these ‘creation of mind’.