Section 274 — Imitating a registered trademark
English translation
Whoever imitates the trademark of another person which has been registered, whether registered within or outside the Kingdom, in order to make the public believe that it is the trademark of that other person, shall be liable to imprisonment not exceeding one year, or a fine not exceeding twenty thousand baht, or both.
This English translation is provided for reference only and has not yet been firm-verified — always rely on the Thai original.
Firm annotation
Imitation is the lesser sibling of counterfeiting under Section 273. Where counterfeiting reproduces the mark, imitation makes a mark merely similar to the genuine one. The defining extra element here is intent: the imitation must be done in order to make the public believe it is the other person's trademark. Reflecting the lower gravity, the penalty ceiling is one year and 20,000 baht, against three years and 60,000 baht for counterfeiting. Like Section 273, this section is reinforced by Section 275, which reaches importing, selling, or offering for sale goods bearing a mark imitated under this section, and cases are usually charged alongside the Trademark Act B.E. 2534.
Why this matters in practice
The decisive issue in most imitation cases is whether the accused acted with intent to make the public believe the mark was the genuine one, which distinguishes a criminal imitation from a merely similar but honest mark. Because the penalty here is modest, complainants often pursue the parallel Trademark Act offences and civil damages at the same time. A brand owner weighing whether the similarity crosses into criminal imitation, or how to combine Penal Code and Trademark Act claims, can consult a Thai lawyer.
Frequently asked questions
How is imitation under Section 274 different from counterfeiting under Section 273?
Counterfeiting reproduces the registered mark, while imitation only makes a similar mark with intent to make the public believe it is the genuine mark. Imitation carries a lighter penalty.
Must the prosecution prove intent to mislead the public?
Yes. Section 274 requires that the imitation be done in order to make the public believe the mark is that of the other person, so intent to mislead is an element of the offence.