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

November 22, 2011

IP in Financial Services

Informed Counsel

With the increase in corporate awareness of the importance and value of intellectual property (IP), many companies are looking deep into their businesses to identify areas that could serve as value drivers. The financial service industry is one of the fastest-growing sectors in IP registration and IP commercialization across the globe. Banks, credit card companies, credit unions, consumer finance companies, insurance companies, stock brokerages, and investment funds are catching up with what are considered more traditional IP-generating industries such as pharmaceutical firms, information technology companies, and industrials. There are numerous aspects of financial service businesses that are worth protecting.

Trademarks

With the increases in financial service product offerings available in the market today, financial institutions are striving to differentiate their products from their competitors by strategic branding and trademarking. In order to better market financial products, a wide variety of product names, slogans, and brands, such as HSBC Premier and Chase Mobile (the mobile phone banking services of JP Morgan Chase & Co), are commonplace. Credit and debit cards are co-branded with airlines. Mutual funds may also be trademarked, a good example being the four Jupiter Merlin portfolios of the UK asset manager, Jupiter Investment Management. While the use of such trademarks helps customers associate certain financial products with a specific provider, they can also be used to defend against competitors—both legitimate and illegitimate—who may try to drive business their way by using trademarks similar to yours.

Patents

With recent curtailments in the United States on business method patents by way of In re Bilski and the U.S. patent law amendments providing for an eight-year postgrant review period for business method patents, many financial institutions may think patents are no longer relevant to their businesses. Hardware, software (or in some countries, such as Thailand, when converged with electronics into machines), data manipulation and output processes for credit risk and credit management, fraud prevention, identity and personal data security technologies, and of course mobile and online banking products may all qualify for patent protection in many jurisdictions, such as the U.S., Canada, Europe, Japan, Australia, and China, to name a few. Financial transactions are increasingly electronic and global in nature, so industry is looking to those jurisdictions where patents might be available in order to exploit their inventions in those countries or to avoid those countries where they might infringe or be subject to an injunction order.

Copyright

To prevent unauthorized use and maximize earning potential, intellectual property relating to corporate technology, computer software, and Internet content should be safeguarded by recording copyright ownership in the appropriate jurisdictions. For financial services, this may mean protecting the software code of a lending evaluation assessment program or a mobile device personal banking application or the proprietary customer interface experience at an ATM.

Financial institutions create, distribute, and gather great quantities of business information in their everyday trade. For example, all institutions correspond through letters and e-mails; a bank might advertise its financial products to its clients in a sales brochure; an equity research house might disseminate company analysis reports amongst its clients; while a hedge fund might produce performance tracking charts which may or may not be linked to trading indices. This business information is all copyright protectable and can therefore be used as an important earning tool for financial institutions. In addition, there is a cost associated with the use of another’s material. Herein lies the value and applicability of intellectual property.

The widespread availability of business information continues to grow as technology promotes greater access to knowledge formats through the Internet and software. The opportunity to exploit the use of another’s material is equally evident, so the protection of this material via copyright should be high on the agenda of financial institutions for defensive as well as for monetizing purposes.

Trade Secrets

Some financial service businesses enjoy such commercial advantage from their IP that they choose to maintain it as a trade secret rather than as a patent, as patents are open to the public to see and are definite in terms of how long they last. Trade secrets are maintained by the strength of the secrecy mechanisms owners build around them and the strength of the contracts under which others are allowed to use them. International and domestic trade secret licenses must contain effective critically important terms, such as confidentiality, control, and noncompetition clauses, in order to maintain this commercial advantage.

IP Holding Companies

With the growing value of intellectual property, a trend has developed among multinationals to centralize ownership of their IP assets in offshore holding and licensing vehicles. IP-intensive companies look to locate the IP portfolios in low-tax jurisdictions with strong IP registration and protection laws. The company then licenses the IP to operating companies in the group or to third-party licensees, franchisees, agents, distributors, etc., in return for royalties or license fees.

IP Holding Companies are popular because they can help corporations to:

  • Minimize tax
  • Gain tax benefits/concessions
  • Protect IP from bankruptcy or other claims against the parent company
  • Focus management attention on the IP portfolio in order to see it as an income generator

IP Holding Companies are also regularly used when the parent corporation seeks to acquire new IP whereby the IP Holding Company will take on the role of the buyer rather than the parent.

Tax and Deciding on Your IP Holding Company

Tax is the primary reason most companies park their IP in separate IP holding vehicles. Sometimes, companies select a no-tax, low-tax, or preferred-tax jurisdiction in which to establish their IP Holding Company that is close to their home country. This may make for easier operational function or be beneficial in distribution or warehousing of goods connected to the IP.

Of course, the IP Holding Company has to function in some demonstrable sense and it must take on the appropriate risks of IP ownership (creation, maintenance, exploitation/licensing, marketing direction/control, regulatory compliance (if any), etc.) to justify what will likely be an eventual transfer of profits from one company within the group to another.

The selected jurisdiction should also be a country with a large and well-established tax treaty network. The existence of double tax treaties is a key factor in jurisdiction shopping. If the IP assets need to be pledged as a security for future borrowings or if they are to be included in the parent company’s asset sheets prior to a public listing, having those IP assets in a respected, transparent country is always beneficial. Also, depending on whether any R&D might be planned, many countries have attractive tax benefits for such activities as a way to encourage local innovation and technology transfer into the country. If the parent has other business operations in the selected country, it very well may be that such items as development or operational costs, company losses in respect of certain activities, or amortization schemes may be available to offset against profit-generating activities.

RELATED INSIGHTS​ 

August 11, 2026
On July 27, 2026, the State Bank of Vietnam (SBV) released a draft decree proposing amendments to Decree No. 52/2024/ND-CP dated May 15, 2024, on non-cash payments (Decree 52). The draft decree would amend 17 of Decree 52’s 38 articles, with several key changes directly affecting providers of intermediary payment service (IPS). The key proposed changes affecting IPS providers are outlined below. Streamlining IPS Licensing Procedures A central objective of the draft decree is to simplify regulatory procedures for IPS providers. Notably, it would significantly reduce IPS licensing documentation requirements by removing the need to submit enterprise registration certificates, investment registration certificates, and documents evidencing the qualifications of the legal representative and general director. Instead, the SBV would retrieve this information directly from national business registration and other specialized databases, requesting additional documents only where the relevant information cannot be verified electronically or is incomplete. The draft decree also removes the current limit of two rounds for dossier supplementation and shortens processing timelines for several IPS licensing procedures such as issuance, amendment, and reissuance of IPS licenses. The processing time for new IPS license applications would be thereby reduced from 90 to 60 working days. In addition, several continuing IPS business conditions would be removed. For example, IPS providers would no longer be required to maintain certain representations relating to corporate restructuring or the legality of contributed capital. Likewise, the IPS project plan (đề án) would become a one-time application document rather than an ongoing licensing condition. If retained in the final decree, this change could provide IPS providers with significantly greater flexibility to implement post-licensing technology upgrades, system integrations, and corporate restructuring transactions without needing to revisit the originally approved project plan. The draft decree also removes the requirement for the SBV to consult the Ministry of Public
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
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