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​ 

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
June 30, 2026
Customs recordation is an enforcement mechanism in Myanmar that enables intellectual property (IP) rights holders to seek prevention of the cross-border movement of infringing goods. The enactment of Myanmar’s IP laws in 2019 has enabled customs recordation for registered marks and copyrights under the Trademark Law 2019 and the Copyright Law 2019. By contrast, the Patent Law 2019 and the Industrial Design Law 2019 do not provide a practical framework for customs recordation, and accordingly such rights are not subject to the customs recordation regime. Under the Trademark Law 2019, rights holders may apply for customs recordation and may also ask the Customs Department to suspend the release of goods suspected of bearing counterfeit marks. Likewise, the Copyright Law 2019 allows for customs intervention in relation to pirated works. These provisions reflect Myanmar’s gradual alignment with international standards on border measures, although the implementation framework remains at a relatively early stage of development. Customs Recordation Pursuant to the Trademark Law 2019 and the Copyright Law 2019, the relevant authorities have issued customs rules concerning the protection of registered marks and copyrights. In practice, the process generally begins with the submission of an application to the Customs Department together with supporting documentation. This typically includes proof of registration in Myanmar; details of the rights holder, applicant, and any authorized representative; and a comprehensive description of the genuine goods. Product identification materials—such as photographs, packaging samples, and distinguishing features—are particularly important in helping customs officers identify suspected infringing goods. A recordation remains valid for two years from the date of approval. It may be renewed for additional two-year terms, provided that the renewal application is filed within the thirty days prior to expiry for marks and up to thirty days in advance of the expiry date for copyrights, in accordance with
June 24, 2026
Patent enablement requirements are provided under Article 102 of Vietnam’s Law on Intellectual Property (IP Law). In particular, a patent specification must “fully and clearly disclose the nature of the invention to such an extent that, based on the specification, a person having ordinary skill in the relevant art can implement the invention.” In pharmaceutical and biotechnology patents, this requirement is more complicated and subject to more rigorous assessment. The Patent Examination Guidelines (Guidelines) of the Intellectual Property Office of Vietnam (IP Office) were amended in March 2026 to introduce Annexes III and IV for the pharmaceutical and biotechnology sectors, in which Annex III provides detailed guidelines on the assessment of specification requirements. These amendments were made under a project for strengthening capacity in industrial property examination between the Japan International Cooperation Agency (JICA) and the IP Office. Annex III provides detailed instructions on how examiners assess enablement in a pharmaceutical or biotechnology application, and offers examples of acceptable and unacceptable descriptions with regard to the enablement aspect. Enablement Requirements in Pharma and Biotech Patents Article 12.7 of Circular 10/2026/TT-BKHCN (Circular 10) adds to the requirements of Article 102 of the IP Law that the description must demonstrate the novelty, inventive step, and industrial applicability of the technical solution. For pharmaceutical composition subject matters, Article 12.9 of Circular 10 sets out that the description must present the results of clinical trials and/or the pharmacological effects of the claimed pharmaceutical composition, and must include at least the following information: Substance/mixture used. Testing method (system) employed. Information on the test results. Correlation between the pharmacological effects obtained from the tests and the application of the pharmaceutical product in the prevention, diagnosis, and treatment of diseases. The Guidelines note that pharmacological study results should be presented in a quantified manner, and pharmacological