You are using an outdated browser and your browsing experience will not be optimal. Please update to the latest version of Microsoft Edge, Google Chrome or Mozilla Firefox. Install Microsoft Edge

February 20, 2017

Resolving IP Disputes Through Arbitration

Subscribe to Updates
Informed Counsel

Intellectual property (IP) disputes may take several forms, including infringement of IP rights, misappropriation of business goodwill and reputation, industrial espionage such as stealing a competitor’s trade secret, unfair competition such as counterfeiting and false advertising, or breach of an agreement to use IP, among many others. Traditionally, IP disputes have been brought before a court. But in recent years, alternative dispute resolution (ADR) has emerged as an increasingly attractive option for resolving such disputes, as parties may wish to avoid court litigation.

Arbitration is a form of ADR that provides a private and confidential procedure to resolve disputes involving IP. Parties may choose arbitration in advance through contractual arrangements or may decide after a dispute arises that arbitration should be pursued as an alternative to conventional litigation. Courts of many countries, including the Central Intellectual Property and International Court of Thailand, offer court-sponsored, nonbinding arbitration as a method of decreasing their caseloads. The arbitration proceedings may include fact-finding, document exchange, briefing and testimony of witnesses, etc. Arbitration awards or the arbitrator’s decisions are legally binding on the parties to the dispute and are subject to judicial review only in extremely limited circumstances.

Arbitration has several advantages over court litigation:

  • Confidentiality. The privacy of arbitration is attractive to parties who may not want to reveal the proceedings to the public. Arbitration sessions are not open, and the arbitrator’s decisions are not released to anyone except the parties.
  • Structure. The parties generally agree to arbitration and are free to further agree to specialized rules and to choose arbitrators with experiences, skills, and expertise suitable for the matter.
  • Procedures. Unlike the one-size-fits-all procedural rules in court litigation that are applicable to all cases, in arbitration the parties will choose actions that best serve their interests, including the applicable law, rules and procedures, and the place and language of the proceedings.
  • Specialized expertise. The parties may select a panel of arbitrators who possess a particular expertise suitable to resolve the complicated and technical nature of disputes involving IP. In complex technology disputes, for example, the selected arbitrators could have deeper understanding about the technology involved than a judge without a scientific or technical background.
  • Efficiency. As a result of the parties’ autonomy, arbitration typically provides a faster and more efficient decision-making process than court litigation. In many cases, arbitration has proven to be cheaper than court litigation.
  • Relationships. Arbitration proceedings are conducted in a friendlier manner than typical litigation, usually in private setting. Rules of evidence and procedure as selected by the parties from the arbitration rules are generally relaxed, which makes the process more business-like and less hostile than court litigation. The ADR process allows the conflicting parties to restore their working business relationship.
  • Enforceability. The enforceability of arbitration awards is recognized by national statutes. Treaties like the United Nations Convention for the Recognition and Enforcement of Foreign Arbitral Awards of 1958 (the New York Convention) provides for the common recognition of arbitral awards. Since grounds for appeal are very limited in contrast to court litigation, arbitration decisions are often viewed as easier to enforce than judicial decisions.

Unless the parties to the disputes aim to establish a public legal precedent rather than an award, arbitration and other forms of ADR can provide an effective means to deal with possible future conflicts. Practitioners, judges, legislators, and academics should pay more attention to the potential value of arbitration and should present arbitration to the parties as an alternative means to the court litigation for resolving IP disputes.

Download Full Article
Related Professionals

Practices

Dispute Resolution and Litigation

Intellectual Property

Location

RELATED INSIGHTS​ 

August 6, 2026
Introduction: A Trademark Paradox in Sustainable Packaging Walk into any Thai supermarket, and the label-free water bottle is no longer a novelty. Thailand’s packaging market, valued at approximately USD 15.68 billion in 2025, is shifting toward minimalist, plastic-light designs as ESG pressures reshape how brands present their products. The country generated roughly 5.68 million tons of plastic waste in 2021, with a recycling rate of only 19 percent, and regulators are now considering rules that would allow label-free bottled water relying on embossing, laser printing, or QR codes instead of wrap-around labels. As packaging itself becomes the brand identifier, a paradox emerges: designs built to say the least often struggle hardest for protection under Thai intellectual property law. The Trademark Barrier: When Shape Is Not Enough Section 7, paragraph 2(10) of the Thai Trademark Act deems a shape distinctive only if it is not the natural form of the goods, is not necessary to achieve a technical result, and does not add value to the goods. The Department of Intellectual Property’s 2022 examination guidelines apply this test conservatively, as the following examples illustrate. A plain water bottle relying on subtle contours to signal its brand is typically read as just another bottle, not a source identifier. Acquired distinctiveness offers a theoretical escape route, but it demands extensive evidence of sales, advertising, and consumer recognition—an especially heavy burden for new entrants whose minimalist packaging has not yet achieved market prominence. The result is a structural bias against precisely the design innovation that sustainability goals are meant to encourage. Design Patents: A Partial, Imperfect Substitute Design patent protection, covering a product’s shape, configuration, or ornamentation, appears to offer an alternative route. In practice, it is constrained by the same forces driving the minimalist trend. Because many brands converge on similar solutions—clear
Read More
August 6, 2026
Every month, VAT-registered businesses in Thailand calculate their output and input VAT and file a return to pay the net amount due or claim a refund. Yet a common and costly dispute arises when a business that has paid input VAT to its supplier—and done everything asked of it—later finds that input VAT rejected on the grounds that the tax invoice was issued by “a person not entitled to issue tax invoices.” In these cases, a buyer may have confirmed the supplier’s VAT registration on the Revenue Department’s website, paid through the banking system, received a complete tax invoice, and kept full payment and inventory records. Even so, if the Revenue Department later determines that the supplier did not genuinely make the sale or collected the VAT without remitting it, the department can disallow the input VAT and assess additional tax, surcharge, and penalty—often more than a year after the transaction. A new article from tax and dispute resolution specialists at Tilleke & Gibbins in Bangkok examines how the Revenue Department and the courts approach these disputes, including two recent Supreme Court (Tax Division) decisions confirming that the taxpayer bears the burden of proving a supplier genuinely sold and delivered the goods and received payment. It considers why the VAT registration system offers no legal safe harbor, why the evidentiary burden falls hardest on online and cross-border transactions where buyers and sellers never meet, and how the Revenue Department’s own digital infrastructure could detect non-remitting suppliers at the source rather than shifting the loss to good-faith buyers. The article also sets out practical guidance: how to build a comprehensive “know-your-supplier” file at the time of a transaction, the procedural steps and strict deadlines for challenging a VAT assessment, and why dispute readiness belongs alongside tax planning at the center
Read More
August 4, 2026
Intellectual property (IP) protection sometimes hinges on fame and recognition. However, this alone will not always be sufficient to overcome an IP dispute when it involves contractual obligations or registered rights. Below are five cases from around the world that tackle some of the basic issues in IP registration, ownership, commercialization, and enforcement. 1. USA: Taylor Swift Trademark Application Refused Taylor Swift recently filed a trademark application to register “The Life of a Showgirl,” which is the title of her 12th studio album. When examining a trademark application, the examiner considers various factors before deciding whether it should be registered. One of these factors is whether there is a likelihood of confusion (i.e., would a regular consumer mistake the origin of the trademark). In Taylor Swift’s case, the US Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO) decided that that there would be a risk of confusion. This decision was based on the existing registered trademark, “Confessions of a Showgirl,” owned by Maren Wade, which was registered in 2015. The USPTO refused Taylor Swift’s application based on the shared key distinctive element “of a showgirl,” the lack of sufficient distinguishing terms, the marks being used in overlapping markets (entertainment and performances), and because consumers may assume a common commercial source. Maren Wade then filed a lawsuit in California against Taylor Swift and her affiliated companies, arguing that Taylor Swfit’s branding is confusingly similar in structure, wording, and overall commercial impression to her registered mark. She is also drawing on the USPTO’s refusal of Taylor Swift’s application to support her argument of a likelihood of confusion. A judgment has not yet been reached in this case, but it serves as an important reminder of the importance of satisfying the essential elements required for IP registration. 2. Australia: Katy Perry v. Katie Perry In
Read More
July 27, 2026
Vietnam’s new E-Commerce Law, which took effect on 1 July 2026 along with its implementing Decree No. 248/2026/ND-CP (Decree 248), marks a significant development in the country’s approach to online intellectual property (IP) enforcement, reflecting a clear shift from a reactive model of intermediary liability to one that expects platforms to play a more active role in preventing infringement. From notice-and-takedown to platform responsibility The most significant change introduced by the E-Commerce Law is the transformation of the legal role of e-commerce platforms. The existing safe harbor provisions under the IP Law and the copyright notice-and-takedown regime established by Decree 17/2023/ND-CP (Decree 17) largely required intermediaries to act only after receiving notice of infringement. Once infringing content had been removed, the platform’s legal obligation was generally considered fulfilled. The new legislation adopts a fundamentally different approach. Article 17 of the E-Commerce Law requires intermediary platforms to screen information relating to goods and services before publication in order to prevent listings involving counterfeit or IP-infringing goods, and goods of unknown origin. Rather than relying exclusively on complaints from rights holders, platforms are now expected to implement preventive measures before infringing listings become publicly available. Decree 248 further requires platforms to update keyword filters based on recommendations issued by competent authorities. These filtering mechanisms are intended to prevent prohibited listings from appearing on the platform and represent a further move away from a purely complaint-driven enforcement model. The legislation also introduces Vietnam’s first statutory stay-down obligation. Under the E-Commerce Law and Decree 248, major digital platforms must maintain automated systems capable of reviewing, warning against, and removing unlawful listings while also implementing measures to prevent repeat violations, defined under Decree 248 as conduct that has previously been identified and handled by the platform, but continues to recur. This obligation addresses one
Read More