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​ 

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
Read More
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
Read More
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
Read More
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
Read More