DOI: 10.14457/tu.the.2015.421
title: Legal problems of E-commerce trustmark in Thailand

description: 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. DBD (Department of Business Development) Registered and DBD (Department of Business Development) Verified, which are both administered by Department of Business Development (“DBD”), Ministry of Commerce, do not follow the 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 DBD. It is unclear whether                       e-consumers can make any claim against DBD for damage when they rely on a trustmark issued by 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 view to setting out appropriate legal measures to revise issues associated with trustmark principles in Thailand. The method used in this thesis to achieve this will be 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 will touch on five issues: 1. the characteristic of trustmarks - 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 that promote e-commerce trustmarks in Thailand. 2. trustmark certification process - if the DBD proposes its trustmark (DBD Registered) to be protected under the Trademark Act, the authorized use of DBD Registered should be in writing and signed by the authorized persons of the DBD, as for the                          pre-certification phase of DBD Verified, the standards of certification should be set up by a specialist association and follow the international practices i.e. those set out under Regulation (EU) No. 910/2014; in the part of post-certification phase, the certified applicant who has had his trustmark revoked, should not have the right to re-apply for certification again, although it was pass 5 years. A blacklist of untrusted e-merchants should be published. 3. The legal relationship and liability of trustmark service provider - 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. The monitoring of trustmark receivers - 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 of laws specific to trustmarks - enforcement laws should be legislated according to the principle of the Regulation (EU) No 910/2014, especially regarding a qualified trust service provider’s liability and burden of proof, trustmark issuance procedure, and monitoring process including setting up a supervisory body to control all trustmark aspects.