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 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
August 3, 2026
On July 23, 2026, the Bank of Thailand (BOT) released for public comment its draft Notification on Digital Channel Security, which would significantly expand the scope and stringency of Thailand’s existing mobile banking security framework. If finalized in its current form, the draft notification would extend mandatory security requirements to credit card providers and credit providers, cover internet banking in addition to mobile applications, phase out SMS one-time passwords (OTPs) for transaction authentication, and introduce biometric verification requirements for high-value transactions. The public comment period is open through August 24, 2026. Background The BOT’s existing Mobile Banking Security Notification, issued in 2024, sets minimum security standards for financial institutions, specialized financial institutions (SFIs), and e-money providers, significantly reducing “money-draining app” fraud. However, fraudsters have since shifted to nonbank providers and internet banking channels, prompting the BOT to propose broader security requirements. Expanded Scope of Regulated Entities and Channels The existing Mobile Banking Security Notification covers only financial institutions, SFIs, and e-money providers offering mobile banking services. The draft expands coverage in two key areas: entities and channels. On the entity side, it adds credit card providers and credit providers that offer fund transfers to third parties at other financial service providers or that provide cash withdrawal services to individual retail customers. On the channel side, it broadens coverage to include internet banking in addition to mobile banking. Strengthened Customer Authentication The draft introduces enhanced authentication requirements in three areas: Service enrollment and device changes. Providers must implement rigorous identity verification, notify customers of enrollment results through out-of-band communication channels, and adopt risk-mitigation measures such as cooling-off periods and temporary transaction limits. Transaction-level authentication. Providers must use two-factor authentication for fund transfers, cardless ATM withdrawals, and transaction limit increases. Secure authentication factors. Key requirements include the following: “What-you-know” factors must
July 27, 2026
Vietnam’s new E-Commerce Law, which took effect on 1 July 2026 along with its implementing Decree No. 248/2026/ND-CP (Decree 248), marks a significant development in the country’s approach to online intellectual property (IP) enforcement, reflecting a clear shift from a reactive model of intermediary liability to one that expects platforms to play a more active role in preventing infringement. From notice-and-takedown to platform responsibility The most significant change introduced by the E-Commerce Law is the transformation of the legal role of e-commerce platforms. The existing safe harbor provisions under the IP Law and the copyright notice-and-takedown regime established by Decree 17/2023/ND-CP (Decree 17) largely required intermediaries to act only after receiving notice of infringement. Once infringing content had been removed, the platform’s legal obligation was generally considered fulfilled. The new legislation adopts a fundamentally different approach. Article 17 of the E-Commerce Law requires intermediary platforms to screen information relating to goods and services before publication in order to prevent listings involving counterfeit or IP-infringing goods, and goods of unknown origin. Rather than relying exclusively on complaints from rights holders, platforms are now expected to implement preventive measures before infringing listings become publicly available. Decree 248 further requires platforms to update keyword filters based on recommendations issued by competent authorities. These filtering mechanisms are intended to prevent prohibited listings from appearing on the platform and represent a further move away from a purely complaint-driven enforcement model. The legislation also introduces Vietnam’s first statutory stay-down obligation. Under the E-Commerce Law and Decree 248, major digital platforms must maintain automated systems capable of reviewing, warning against, and removing unlawful listings while also implementing measures to prevent repeat violations, defined under Decree 248 as conduct that has previously been identified and handled by the platform, but continues to recur. This obligation addresses one
July 27, 2026
A new decree on penalties for violations related to the crypto asset market creates compliance risks for offshore crypto asset exchanges in Vietnam that do not hold, and practically cannot obtain, a Vietnamese license, and for Vietnamese users who continue to transact on those platforms. Decree No. 284/2026/ND-CP (Decree 284), issued by the government of Vietnam on July 16, 2026, formally establishes an administrative penalty framework for violations related to crypto assets and the crypto asset market. The decree takes effect on September 1, 2026, and will remain in force for the duration of the five-year pilot program under Resolution No. 05/2025/NQ-CP, which is scheduled to end in September 2030. Direct Penalties on Vietnamese Users The most immediate commercial risk to offshore platforms is that their Vietnamese users now face direct personal liability for using their exchanges. Vietnamese users who trade crypto assets outside of a Ministry of Finance-licensed service provider face fines of up to VND 50 million (approximately USD 1,900). Vietnamese users trading in crypto assets that are offered or issued to foreign users face higher penalties of up to VND 100 million (approximately USD 3,800). It is expected that Vietnamese users will be more willing to migrate away from offshore platforms now that there is a risk of real enforcement against them. Penalties on Unlicensed Service Providers Violations of providing crypto asset services or advertising crypto-related services without a license face fines of up to VND 200 million (approximately USD 7,700). Operating a crypto asset trading market without proper authorization falls within the same highest penalty bands. Organizations that violate issuance, provision, or disclosure rules may face fines of up to VND 200 million. Although the maximum administrative fine per violation is capped at VND 200 million for organizations and VND 100 million for individuals, these