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

July 25, 2014

The Four Basics to Reap the Benefits of Intellectual Property

Subscribe to Updates
Bangkok Post, Corporate Counsellor Column

As a business owner or manager, you need to know the basics of intellectual property (IP) protection. Otherwise, you may fail to put in place adequate safeguards for securing IP rights, and you may not be able to fully derive the benefits of exploiting your intellectual assets.

In order to realise the benefits of IP fully, you should take it upon yourself to gain a complete understanding of the IP protection system.

There are several pertinent questions you should address prior to even creating your IP, to ensure you obtain the best protection available for safeguarding your rights under the law. In light of this pressing need, in the following article we delve into four basic concepts of IP protection that every IP owner should be familiar with.

What types of IP protection are available?

The types of IP protection available include patents, copyrights, trademarks and trade secrets. These can be broken down in the simplest terms, as follows:

  • Patent is used to protect a new invention or a novel product design;
  • A trademark is for the protection of a product brand;
  • A copyright mainly offers protection for an aesthetic creation such as literature, art or music; and
  • A trade secret protects trade information beneficial to the business of the owner.

It is important you determine which types of protection are attributable to your IP creation. Some creations are eligible to be protected by more than one of the above types, so the most beneficial type of protection should be identified and obtained as soon as possible.

Depending on which type of IP you decide to pursue, you will need to fulfil specific legal requirements. For example, a product seeking patent registration must be seen, in the eyes of the law, as new, having an inventive step and being capable of industrial application.

It may not, however, be an absolute necessity for you to understand the fine details of these requirements. These issues are better answered by IP professionals. Most important is that you thoroughly address these issues before you seek protection.

Where should I protect my IP?

In general, protection of IP is limited to the territory in which the IP is registered.

A trademark registered in Thailand is protected only within Thailand. Therefore, it may not be sufficient for you to seek IP protection in just one country. You will need to ensure your IP is protected in all the countries where the business interests of that particular IP will be exploited.

When should I protect my IP?

You will also need to decide when to seek protection before you take action to exploit your IP, particularly when the asset is protectable under the patent system, which requires the product or design to be new.

It is futile to try to obtain a patent after you have manufactured and sold your innovative product you have spent valuable resources in developing, as the distribution of the product before filing the patent application has already negated its novelty.

Seeking protection for your IP sooner rather than later may be very beneficial, as it may save you from unnecessary stress and costly legal disputes about who is the legitimate owner.

Experienced IP lawyers often see their clients encounter problems with their trademarks being stolen by other parties who registered the trademarks in their own name, and eventually the legitimate owner is required to pursue litigation against such party or pay a considerable amount of money to purchase a trademark that was rightfully theirs in the first place.

How should I obtain protection?

In order to obtain legal protection, certain types of IP such as patents and trademarks are required to be registered with the relevant authority. On the other hand, some types such as copyrights and trade secrets are automatically protected.

Systems for recording the ownership of such IP are available as well.

You can submit an application for registration of your IP on your own without the help of an experienced IP practitioner, and some corporations may find this to be more cost-effective.

You should be aware, however, of possible difficulties during the registration process and of the challenges in trying to understand how to obtain the most beneficial protection for your IP.

In the worst-case scenario, you may find the protection you obtained is insufficient due to its narrow scope, resulting from a lack of understanding of the registration process. This could cause difficulties when you want to enforce your rights against an IP infringer.

Although some of these questions may involve complicated legal issues, corporations operating in markets where they rely on IP as a competitive edge cannot afford to ignore them.

It is unlikely, if not impossible, for a business to be able to fully enjoy the benefits of its IP without a proper understanding of IP protection and how to maximise IP rights.

Download Full Article
Related Professionals

Practices

Intellectual Property

Location

RELATED INSIGHTS​ 

September 14, 2026
Myanmar’s first-to-file trademark registration regime under the Trademark Law 2019—which became fully operational in April 2023—provides mark owners with enhanced legal protection compared with the country’s former system. Correspondingly, the current system imposes more rigorous statutory requirements for obtaining, maintaining, and enforcing rights in marks. In this first-to-file trademark registration system, however, evidence of use remains particularly significant, as it may establish acquired distinctiveness, support a claim that a mark is well-known, and strengthen the owner’s position in both registration and enforcement proceedings. Accordingly, it can be said that this framework is underpinned by three key concepts: distinctiveness, well-known status, and, importantly, use of the trademark. Trademark Distinctiveness Under the Trademark Law, signs that lack distinctiveness are generally ineligible for mark protection. These signs include generic terms, basic shapes, unstylized single letters or numerals, and signs that merely describe the kind, quality, quantity, intended purpose, value, geographical origin, production time, or other characteristics of the relevant goods or services. However, a mark that would otherwise be refused on distinctiveness or descriptiveness grounds may be registrable if it has acquired distinctiveness through its use prior to the filing date. To show this, the applicant must demonstrate that the mark became distinctive to relevant consumers through continuous, exclusive, and good-faith use in trade within Myanmar. The burden of proving acquired distinctiveness rests with the mark owner. Accordingly, sufficient evidence demonstrating both use of the mark and the level of consumer recognition attained should be prepared in advance. Well-Known Mark Criteria Myanmar’s Trademark Rules, which govern the substantive examination of mark registration applications, establish criteria for determining well-known marks, aligned with international standards. Where an applicant claims well-known status—whether to overcome a refusal on relative grounds or to oppose a third party’s registration—the registrar will assess the claim based on the following
Read More
September 14, 2026
On August 23, 2026, Vietnam’s National Assembly passed Law No. 11/2026/QH16, amending the country’s Customs Law with effect from March 1, 2027. The amendments represent a substantial reform of Vietnam’s customs-based intellectual property enforcement regime. The reforms come amid considerable external pressure. In its 2026 Special 301 review, the US Trade Representative (USTR) designated Vietnam a “priority foreign country,” citing widespread counterfeiting, weak border enforcement, limited ex officio customs powers, and the absence of controls over goods in transit. Vietnam’s legislative response signals a commitment to bringing its border enforcement practices into line with international expectations. For IP rights holders operating in or through Vietnam, the amended law introduces several tools that substantially strengthen enforcement options at the border. Closing the Transit Gap One of the most consequential amendments is the extension of IP-related customs enforcement to goods in transit. Previously, Vietnam’s customs regime applied IP controls only to goods being imported or exported, a gap the USTR had specifically identified as enabling infringing goods to pass through Vietnamese ports with impunity. Vietnam’s geographic position as a logistics hub for Southeast Asia means that substantial volumes of goods transit its ports and free-trade zones. Extending enforcement to cover these shipments brings Vietnam closer to the standard set by the EU’s customs enforcement regulation and addresses a longstanding concern of multinational brand owners whose goods are frequently counterfeited in the region. Strengthened Suspension and Ex Officio Powers The amended law introduces a dual-track suspension mechanism (Article 73(2)). Customs authorities will suspend clearance upon request by an IP rights holder (or authorized representative) who provides evidence of IP ownership, evidence of infringement, and a financial guarantee. Customs can now proactively suspend clearance on an ex officio basis if, during inspection and monitoring, they discover “clear grounds” to suspect that imported, exported,
Read More
September 7, 2026
Indonesia’s Constitutional Court (Mahkamah Konstitusi) has reinstated a key provision limiting pharmaceutical patent protection, signaling a renewed commitment to balancing patent rights with public access to medicines. In its ruling to Case No. 255/PUU-XXIII/2025, the court partially granted a petition for judicial review of Law No. 65 of 2024, which had amended the country’s Patent Law, and ordered the restoration of a provision that had excluded certain pharmaceutical inventions from patentability. The decision took effect immediately upon its pronouncement at the court’s plenary session on August 28, 2026. Background The petition challenged the removal of article 4(f) from Law No. 13 of 2016 concerning Patents (Patent Law), as amended by Law No. 65 of 2024. Article 4(f) had excluded from patentability certain inventions relating to new uses of known substances. The petitioners argued that removing this provision would open the door to patent protection for second medical use inventions and facilitate patent evergreening—practices that can extend exclusivity periods, delay generic market entry, and reduce public access to affordable medicines. The petitioners included several patient advocacy and public-interest organizations: the Indonesian Dialysis Patients Community Association, the Indonesian Association of Drug Abuse Victims (PKNI), the Indonesian Pulmonary Hypertension Foundation (YHPI), the Rekat Peduli Indonesia Foundation, and the Indonesian Positive Women’s Association (IPPI), along with the Indonesia for Global Justice Association and four individual petitioners. The petitioners also challenged the constitutionality of the phrase “interested party” in article 70(1) of the Patent Law, arguing that it should be construed expressly to clarify who has standing to appeal a decision to grant a patent before the Board of Patent Appeal, and to allow a broader range of parties—such as patent holders, licensees, consumer organizations, prosecutors, aggrieved third parties, and others who may suffer direct or indirect harm from the grant of a patent—to
Read More
September 2, 2026
Thailand and China have a longstanding and significant trade relationship, which increasingly extends to e-commerce and digitally enabled supply chains. While these channels create new opportunities for businesses to reach consumers across borders, their growth also brings greater exposure to intellectual property (IP) infringement across jurisdictions and online platforms. Effective cooperation between the two countries’ enforcement authorities has therefore become increasingly important. To strengthen cooperation in this area, Thailand and China signed a memorandum of understanding (MOU) on IP enforcement in Beijing on July 20, 2026, during the Thai prime minister’s official visit to China. Officially titled “Memorandum of Understanding Between the State Administration for Market Regulation of the People’s Republic of China and the Ministry of Commerce of the Kingdom of Thailand on Cooperation in the Field of Intellectual Property Enforcement,” the MOU forms part of a broader bilateral agenda covering industrial and supply chains, participation by micro, small, and medium-sized enterprises (MSMEs), cooperation associated with the ASEAN–China Free Trade Area 3.0, and progress on the registration of Thai geographical indications in China. The MOU establishes a bilateral framework for cooperation and coordination in five broad areas: Strengthening dialogue in IP enforcement; Enhancing information sharing; Facilitating the enforcement of IP rights in cases arising in the parties’ domestic markets and on online platforms, in accordance with their respective domestic laws; Promoting cooperation in IP enforcement training and human resource development; and Undertaking other cooperation activities agreed upon by both sides. The Department of Intellectual Property (DIP) will serve as the principal coordinating agency for Thailand, while the Bureau of Law Enforcement and Inspection in China’s State Administration for Market Regulation (SAMR) will serve in that role for China. The framework is particularly relevant to the growth of e-commerce, as it covers infringement in the domestic markets and on
Read More