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​ 

July 15, 2026
Ambush marketing refers to a strategy in which a business associates itself with an event, campaign, or brand without paying for official sponsorship rights. The tactic is most visible in sports, concerts, and festivals, where official sponsors have invested substantially for exclusivity. Ambush marketers may use suggestive wording, event-themed imagery, athlete endorsements, venue-adjacent promotions, or social media campaigns implying a commercial connection with the event. Common Forms of Ambush Marketing Ambush marketing typically takes one of the following forms: Direct ambushing: using event names, logos, or mascots suggesting authorization Coattail ambushing: sponsoring an athlete or broadcaster connected with the event Subtle ambushing: themed advertising, venue-adjacent campaigns, or similar visual cues The legal analysis in each case turns on whether the marketing crosses from permissible event-based advertising into infringement, passing off, deception, or wrongful exploitation of goodwill, and the risk assessment is necessarily fact-specific. Thailand has no dedicated ambush marketing statute, so legality depends on execution. A campaign that merely comments on a public event may be permissible, but one that uses protected marks, creates consumer confusion, misrepresents sponsorship status, or makes unsubstantiated claims may trigger liability under various Thai laws, as laid out below. Ambush Marketing and Thailand’s Trademark Act The Trademark Act B.E. 2534 (1991) is the primary tool for addressing campaigns that use registered trademarks, event names, logos, mascots, or confusingly similar signs. The law gives registered trademark owners the exclusive right to use their mark for registered goods, and infringement risk arises when a nonsponsor uses an event mark or a confusingly similar sign in advertising. Even referential or playful use may create liability if it causes public confusion as to sponsorship or commercial connection. The law also preserves passing-off claims for unregistered marks. This matters because event names, taglines, or mascots may not always be
July 13, 2026
When Decree No. 186/2026/ND-CP (Decree 186) takes effect on July 15, 2026, it will introduce the most significant reform of Vietnam’s administrative IP enforcement framework since Decree 99/2013/ND-CP was issued in 2013. These changes are expected to make administrative enforcement faster, more accessible, and better suited to the realities of modern IP disputes. Below are the principal reforms and their practical implications for rights holders and enforcement practitioners. The End of Notarization and Consular Legalization Among the most welcome procedural changes is the abolition of the notarization and consular legalization requirement for powers of attorney (POA) submitted in administrative enforcement proceedings. Under the previous regime, foreign rights holders were generally required to execute a POA, then have it notarized and consular legalized (if seeking customs recordal). In practice, this process frequently delayed enforcement by four to eight weeks, often long enough for infringing goods to disappear before authorities could intervene. Decree 186 removes this bottleneck, now requiring only an original or certified copy of the POA. If the document is in a foreign language, a Vietnamese translation is sufficient, provided it is certified by a competent authority or confirmed by the authorized Vietnamese IP representative. Consular legalization and notarization are no longer required. For rights holders, the practical impact is substantial. Administrative enforcement files that previously took weeks to prepare can now be completed in a matter of days, allowing much faster responses in time-sensitive matters such as warehouse raids, border interventions, and trade-fair enforcement. The decree also introduces a useful administrative simplification. Where an original POA has already been submitted to the same enforcement authority and remains valid, applicants may rely on a copy of that earlier submission by identifying the previous case file. This eliminates unnecessary duplication for rights holders pursuing multiple enforcement actions before the same
July 9, 2026
Recycling, upcycling, and refill-packaging models are now widely promoted as ways to reduce waste, lower carbon emissions, and respond to consumer demand for sustainable products. However, complications arise when these environmentally driven trends intersect with intellectual property law—particularly where reused or altered packaging continues to display third parties’ registered trademarks. Adding to this complexity, Thailand’s draft Sustainable Packaging Management Act aims to introduce new environmental compliance obligations that businesses must navigate alongside existing trademark concerns. Recycling and upcycling packaging may infringe trademark rights, especially in cases not protected by the first-sale doctrine—the principle that a trademark owner’s rights over a particular mark-bearing product end once the owner first sells it. Furthermore, even refill packaging carries legal risk due to specific statutory prohibitions under Thai law. Compounding these challenges, the draft Sustainable Packaging Management Act will impose extended producer responsibility (EPR) obligations on manufacturers and brand owners, requiring them to manage packaging throughout its lifecycle. These overlapping legal frameworks could deter manufacturers from pursuing ESG-aligned business models unless businesses understand how to navigate both trademark and environmental requirements. Under Thai law, this issue remains uncertain because the Trademark Act does not expressly codify the first sale doctrine, also known as the exhaustion of trademark rights. Generally, this doctrine provides that once a trademark owner has lawfully sold goods bearing its trademark, the owner’s right to control further resale of those particular goods is exhausted. The rationale is that the owner has already received commercial benefit from the first authorized sale; therefore, the purchaser should be free to resell or otherwise dispose of the goods. Although the doctrine is not expressly codified in the Trademark Act, Thai courts have recognized it in relation to genuine goods and parallel imports, as seen in a Supreme Court Judgment No. 2817/2543 in which the
July 6, 2026
Indonesia’s regulation on reporting online intellectual property (IP) infringement provides comprehensive procedural guidance for IP rights holders and their licensees in reporting online infringement complaints. Issued in December 2025 by the Ministry of Law as Regulation No. 47 of 2025 regarding Handling of Intellectual Property Infringement Reports in Electronic Systems, this regulation covers all types of IP rights. It also specifies documentation when reporting infringement, and lays out the procedures for examination, verification, and enforcement actions. Submission of Complaints Complainants may submit reports through the online system of the Directorate General of Intellectual Property (DGIP) or in person at the DGIP office. Complaints may also be filed through an authorized proxy. Under the regulation, complainants are required to provide the following information and documents: Personal details of the complainant; Brief description of the protected work or subject matter (i.e., type of IP and name or address of the infringing website, portal, account, or application, or a link to the location of the infringing content); Complete description of the alleged infringement; Certificate of registration or recordal of the relevant IP; Recordal of IP license agreement, if any; and Other supporting evidence. Verification and Examination Process Upon receiving a complaint, the responsible formality officer may request clarification or additional supporting documents. In the latter case, the complainant must then submit the necessary administrative documents within 14 days of the notification date. Once the documentation is deemed complete and sufficient, the case will be formally registered. Subsequently, the DGIP will establish a verification team to handle online IP violations, which will include the Civil Servant Investigator (PPNS), the Ministry of Communication and Digital Affairs, experts with relevant expertise in IP, and representatives from related associations such as AVISI (Indonesian Video Streaming Association). After examining the report, the team will prepare the Minutes