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

September 19, 2014

Controlling Intellectual Property When Outsourcing

Bangkok Post, Corporate Counsellor Column

Outsourcing is not a novel way of doing business. No matter the industry, a company is likely to be involved in outsourcing in some way. When hiring a third party to assist in a part of your business, the main factors influencing management’s choice of vendor are expertise, quality of outcome and budget.

If your company business is driven mainly by innovation, then intellectual property (IP) issues are likely to be a significant part of your consideration when choosing an outsourcing vendor. In this article, we will elaborate on how you can control your company’s IP when outsourcing.

Assessing your IP

The first step to take is to assess your IP. If you are sure the transaction will result in the vendor being involved with your IP rights, then your company should be very cautious in sharing IP-related information.

For instance, when a printing company is hired to print product labels, steps must be taken to ensure the vendor does not produce more of the merchandise than was originally agreed on. Otherwise, this could lead to counterfeiting and trademark infringement.

When the situation is not clear-cut — e.g., a company engages a headhunting firm to help fill positions due to business expansion — bear in mind that any information given to vendors is valuable and can amount to IP.

Be aware that trade information and business strategies including but not limited to formulas, methods, techniques or processes discovered in the course of research may be entitled to protection as trade secrets.

Similar to other types of IP laws, the Trade Secret Act grants the trade secret owner the right to exclude others from the act of disclosure, deprivation or use of the trade secret.

In order to be eligible for legal protection in Thailand as a trade secret, the company information must not be publicly known or accessible by persons who are normally connected with the information; the information must be economically valuable due to its secrecy; and the controller of the information must have taken appropriate measures to maintain secrecy.

The actions that constitute “appropriate measures” depend on the nature of the secret. Use of nondisclosure agreements and confidentiality clauses in contracts and other agreements is generally advised as a cautionary measure.

Investigating potential vendors

The next step is to investigate potential vendors. To gather valuable information about vendors to help your company exercise good judgement, you should first check a vendor’s entity registration and financial records. Basic information such as registered capital, length of establishment and annual balance sheet should be among the first things to look for, and this information is publicly available at the Commerce Ministry.

If the vendor’s basic information arouses any suspicion, you may have to investigate further to see whether it has any previous history of IP infringement or has past regulatory violations. If the records show anything negative, you may want to consider using another vendor.

Key terms in the contract

Contracts are important tools that can help you control your company’s IP. Essential terms to consider incorporating into the engagement contract are:

  • audit rights during the contract term and after termination;
  • prohibition on subcontracting without prior approval;
  • disposal of damaged and unauthorised goods; and
  • handover of IP after termination including manuals or important information.

Not only do audit rights help a company to control how a vendor uses the company’s IP or information, they also give the company the opportunity to control the quality of the product or service the vendor is engaged to deliver. Companies should require that vendors not subcontract to third parties without the company’s prior consent.

The opportunity can also be taken to audit damaged and unauthorised goods or shoddy services, which can eventually lead to refurbishing or destruction of those goods or performing the services again.

It is important to remember there is a higher chance for your valuable information and IP rights to be misappropriated or infringed if many people have access to your company’s IP or information. Also, when a vendor concludes service, you should take possession of all product specifications, manuals, data, moulds or information relating to your product or company — if left unattended or recklessly discarded, these can often be reused and cause information to be leaked.

In sum, when an innovation-driven company engages external vendors, protecting the company’s IP should be a prime consideration. In doing so, we suggest starting with knowing your IP assets and identifying the IP that will be exposed to the vendor. Then, investigate potential vendors to examine their legitimacy and past history.

Finally, in addition to using routine contract language, consider adding clauses that help your company control its IP and leakage of information. This way, you will lower your chances of encountering IP infringement.

RELATED INSIGHTS​ 

August 20, 2026
As part of its membership in Lex Mundi, Tilleke & Gibbins has released the latest edition of its Guide to Doing Business in Thailand, providing an overview of the legal, regulatory, and commercial considerations for companies establishing or expanding operations in Thailand. The 2026 edition offers practical insight into the country’s business environment, investment framework, and operational requirements. The guide covers a wide range of topics relevant to foreign and domestic investors, including: Investment incentives and promotion schemes Financial facilities and banking regulations Exchange controls and money transfers Import and export regulations Business structures and incorporation options Requirements for establishing a business Operational and compliance considerations Business cessation and insolvency procedures Employment and labor laws Taxation Immigration and visa requirements Prepared by Tilleke & Gibbins lawyers across multiple practice areas, the publication outlines key aspects of doing business in Thailand, including foreign investment restrictions, regulatory compliance obligations, corporate structures, employment requirements, and recent legal and economic developments affecting investors. The publication forms part of Lex Mundi’s Country Guides series, a global collection of jurisdiction-specific reference materials prepared by member firms around the world. Together, these guides help companies evaluate opportunities, compare regulatory environments, and plan international business activities across multiple markets. The full Guide to Doing Business in Thailand 2026 is available through the button below.
August 13, 2026
Modern agricultural machinery is no longer purely mechanical but instead technology dependent. Modern tractors, harvesters, and other farm equipment increasingly incorporate embedded software, electronic control units, sensors, and digital diagnostic systems. While such technologies enhance efficiency, productivity, and precision farming, they also affect the manner of equipment repair and maintenance. As a result, farmers and independent repair providers may have little practical choice but to rely on authorized dealers, even for routine maintenance and repairs. Section 36 of Thailand’s Patent Act reflects the principle that the authorized sale of a patented invention usually exhausts the exclusive right of the patent owner over the specific product. This means that upon legal sale of the patented product, it can typically be used or resold without further authorization from the patent holder. This principle is relatively straightforward when applied to traditional mechanical equipment. Ownership of a machine ordinarily carries with it the practical ability to diagnose faults, replace worn parts, and restore the equipment to working order. Modern agricultural machinery, however, increasingly depends on embedded software, proprietary diagnostic systems, firmware updates, and other digital resources that may remain under the control of the manufacturer or patent holder. This tension lies within the “right to repair” debate. In the United States, on July 8, 2026, the Federal Trade Commission and five states announced a settlement with Deere & Company resolving allegations that Deere had unlawfully restricted farmers’ and independent repair providers’ ability to repair their equipment. Under the terms of the settlement, for the next ten years, Deere must provide repair resources, including software capabilities, on terms equivalent to those provided to authorized dealers. The Deere settlement highlights that the nature of ownership is changing, but legal concepts have not kept pace. Traditional patent-law concepts, including patent exhaustion, were developed with physical products
August 10, 2026
Thailand has finalized its social media KYC (“know your customer”) rules under Notification of the Electronic Transactions Commission on Measures to Prevent Technological Crimes for Social Media Service Providers (No. 2), which was published in the Government Gazette on May 5, 2026, and will take effect on November 1, 2026. While an early draft of the notification proposed requiring social media platforms to arrange identification of every user account, the final notification is significantly more targeted, focusing on paid online advertising and advertiser identity verification. Though the regulatory initiative primarily aims to combat online fraud and technology-related crimes, it also has important consequences for intellectual property enforcement, because the verified platform records that will be generated under the new requirements can help IP rights holders to identify anonymous online infringers. Key Regulatory Mandates The notification requires social media service providers to verify the identity of advertisers before their paid advertisements are published and disseminated in Thailand through social media, regardless of whether the advertising fees come from the advertisers or third parties. Verification of an advertiser is valid for one year, after which verification would have to be performed again before the platform could publish additional paid advertisements from the advertiser. Permitted verification methods are specified under the notification. A platform may verify an advertiser by checking identity evidence and confirming the connection between the advertiser and that identity evidence, with the notification giving facial comparison against certain government-issued identity documents as an example. Alternatively, platforms may verify advertisers through a digital identity verification and authentication system with an identity-proofing assurance level not lower than the level prescribed by Thailand’s Electronic Transactions Commission. The notification further requires platforms to retain only the advertiser’s information necessary to identify the advertiser, beginning from the start of the advertising activity and for
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