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

February 22, 2012

IP Holding Vehicles: Singapore vs. Hong Kong

Subscribe to Updates
Informed Counsel

With intellectual property playing an ever-increasing role in economic development, the need to harness, promote, and protect ASEAN innovation has become more urgent as integration progresses. Among its objectives, the AEC aims to transform the region into a hub of innovation and competitiveness and ensure that the region remains an active participant in the international IP community. With ASEAN member states gearing up toward increased IP generation and with further commitments to global IP regimes, the region may soon look to sophisticated IP ownership and holding structures.

IP Holding Companies

Recognizing the importance of securing IP rights in the upcoming era of AEC, a trend has developed among ASEAN-based companies to centralize ownership of their IP assets in offshore holding and licensing vehicles—an approach multinational companies have been using for a number of years. IP-intensive companies look to locate their 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. These special-purpose vehicles are typically referred to as IP Holding Companies.

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, and focus management attention on the IP portfolio in order to see it as an income generator.

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.

The selected jurisdiction should also be a country with a large and well-established tax treaty network. Double tax treaties are key criteria 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.

Singapore

In the past few years, Singapore has emerged as one of the most IP-focused jurisdictions in Asia, with the government going to great lengths to encourage the transfer of technology and IP to the country. Generally, the IP tax incentives offered in Singapore apply to a wide range of qualifying expenditure incurred on qualifying activities, such as R&D done in Singapore (with additional possible deductions on some R&D done outside Singapore), registration of IP rights, acquisition of IP rights, investments in automation, training of employees, and investments in design done in Singapore.

One of the main factors why Singapore is fast becoming Asia’s go-to place to hold a company’s IP is the fact that Singapore has a long-standing and impressive double taxation treaty network with about 60 countries. Coupled with a comparatively low prevailing corporate tax rate of 17%, most businesses find Singapore an excellent location to house IP.

In making a decision regarding whether to remove an IP portfolio from Thailand to a more tax-efficient jurisdiction, it is important to study the potential income streams that the IP holder will receive from potential users/licensors of the IP, as well as the associated tax implications. The issue here is withholding tax. It will be expected that the tax regimes in most jurisdictions will impose withholding tax on the income streams derived from the IP exploitation (as would be the case here in Thailand). Withholding tax will be reduced under double taxation agreements between Singapore and those countries from where the royalties will be paid.

Hong Kong

Unlike offshore financial centers, Hong Kong is not a zero-tax jurisdiction. However, its 17.5% profits tax rate is relatively low compared to the rates of other jurisdictions in Asia.

Hong Kong taxes residents and non-residents only to the extent that they derive Hong Kong–sourced income from the carrying on of trade, profession, or business in Hong Kong. This territorial tax regime provides an opportunity to design the IP holding structure to reduce exposure to Hong Kong profits tax.

Hong Kong’s profits tax system taxes royalty payments received by a Hong Kong company only if (1) the Hong Kong company is considered to carry on trade or business in Hong Kong, and (2) the royalty income is considered to arise in, or be derived from, that Hong Kong trade or business. If properly structured, Hong Kong’s territorial tax regime can provide favorable tax planning opportunities.

Hong Kong generally does not impose withholding tax on outbound payments. But for outbound royalty payments, Hong Kong imposes a withholding tax if the amount paid is treated as income that is chargeable to Hong profits tax under the criteria described above. Otherwise, no withholding tax is imposed.

If withholding tax is chargeable on royalty payments from Hong Kong, the payment would attract a withholding tax of either 5.5% or 17.5%. The higher rate applies if the royalty payment is made to an associate and the intellectual property has been owned, or partly owned, by a person carrying on business in Hong Kong.

Outlook

IP Holding Companies bring together three complex legal fields: (1) IP, (2) tax, and (3) corporate structuring and insolvency. Transactions are cross-border in nature, thus adding to the complexity. But with proper investigation and planning, synergies do arise and IP holding vehicles can offer significant advantages when an IP owner seeks to streamline royalty and licensing intakes from multiple licensees.

Download Full Article
Related Professionals

Practices

Corporate/M&A

Dispute Resolution and Litigation

Intellectual Property

Tax

Location

RELATED INSIGHTS​ 

June 16, 2026
The president of Thailand’s Supreme Court has issued new recommendations providing courts with criminal jurisdiction with a comprehensive framework for identifying and dismissing criminal cases brought in bad faith. Published in the Government Gazette on May 29, 2026, after being signed on May 25, the Recommendations of the President of the Supreme Court Concerning Bad-Faith Litigation in Criminal Cases B.E. 2569 were issued under Section 5 of the Act on the Organization of Courts of Justice. The recommendations took effect upon publication and represent a significant step in Thailand’s efforts to curb abusive criminal litigation, including strategic lawsuits against public participation (SLAPP). Background Section 161/1 of Thailand’s Criminal Procedure Code empowers courts to dismiss criminal cases filed dishonestly or with the intent to harass or take unfair advantage of a defendant. The new recommendations provide detailed guidance that courts previously lacked on identifying and handling such prosecutions. Definition of Bad-Faith Litigation Under recommendation 1, filing a criminal case in bad faith is defined broadly to encompass three categories: Harassment-type filings involving intimidation, threats, or creating unreasonable hardship for the defendant; Coercive filings designed to pressure the defendant into acting or refraining from acting for illegitimate benefit; and False or misleading filings that deliberately assert incorrect material facts or conceal such facts. Circumstances Indicating Bad Faith Recommendation 2 sets out specific circumstances that should raise a court’s suspicion that a filing may violate section 161/1. These include: Filing in a distant court far from the defendant’s domicile without benefiting the adjudication; Retaliation against the defendant’s advocacy for human rights, environmental protection, consumer rights, labor rights, or other public interests—effectively establishing an express anti-SLAPP framework; Retaliation against whistleblowers who disclosed corruption or unlawful conduct; Retaliation against individuals responsible for investigating the plaintiff’s wrongdoing or who concluded such an investigation; Filing multiple
Read More
June 16, 2026
Since the implementation of the Trademark Law 2019 on April 1, 2023, Myanmar has operated under a modern first-to-file trademark system that brings its registration framework closer to international practice. As the new regime continues to develop in practice, applicants are increasingly required to navigate formal examination requirements, substantive objections, and procedural deadlines with greater precision. This article provides a high-level review of the trademark examination process in Myanmar, focusing on the principal stages from initial review to approval, the types of objections commonly raised by the Intellectual Property Department (IPD), and the key considerations for responding effectively. A clear understanding of these issues is essential for applicants seeking to secure registration efficiently and to mitigate avoidable delays or refusals. Examination Process: Key Stages Trademark applications filed with the IPD undergo two stages of review. Formality Examination The IPD first verifies compliance with procedural requirements, including: Correct Nice Classification Clear mark representation Accurate applicant details Clearly defined goods or services Representative details, if the application is filed by a representative Other formality requirements cover translation and transliteration of any non-English or non-Myanmar elements in the mark, color claim details, applicable disclaimers, and payment of official fees. Deficiencies result in an office action requiring correction within 30 days, which may be extended upon request. Registrability Examination The IPD also assesses registrability. A mark may be refused if it: Lacks distinctiveness Is descriptive or generic Misleads the public or violates public order/morality Contains prohibited state symbols Only compliant applications proceed to publication. Responding to Office Actions Applicants must respond within 30 days of notification from the IPD. Depending on the nature of the objection, strategies may include submitting legal arguments for distinctiveness, providing evidence of acquired distinctiveness, filing appropriate disclaimers, clarifying descriptions such as color claims, or amending the listed goods
Read More
June 15, 2026
The surge in AI development has led to a desperate demand for large, high-quality training data. However, real-world data can be expensive to collect, difficult to access, and often subject to strict privacy and regulatory constraints. Synthetic data, which consists of artificially generated records that replicate the statistical properties of real-world data without reproducing specific individuals’ information, provides an appealing solution by generating artificial datasets at scale without relying on identifiable personal information. It combines speed, cost efficiency, and regulatory compliance, making it a sensible alternative for organizations seeking to reduce risks while maintaining data utility. When properly anonymized, synthetic datasets may fall outside the scope of laws such as the EU’s General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR) or Thailand’s Personal Data Protection Act (PDPA), reducing compliance burdens while still supporting high-quality model training. However, relying on synthetic data without rigorous legal due diligence could be a strategic mistake. It replaces one set of known risks (scraping, direct privacy liability) with a new set of complex liabilities. The narrative that synthetic data is a “silver bullet” for privacy and IP compliance is dangerous and could be misleading. While synthetic data addresses data scarcity, it also introduces new legal uncertainties. Legal counsel should anticipate downstream risks arising from compromised data sources. Models trained on unlawfully obtained data may need to be decommissioned, even if their outputs appear lawful. What is synthetic data? Synthetic data refers to artificially generated information created using AI techniques such as deep learning and generative models. Instead of copying real records, it reproduces the statistical patterns and relationships found in the original dataset. Synthetic data generally falls into three categories: Fully synthetic data – Entirely new data points generated from learned patterns. The model studies the structure of the original data and produces records that resemble real-world
Read More
June 10, 2026
In March 2026, the Intellectual Property Office of Vietnam (IP Office) issued a decision refusing a trademark application after considering an opposition based primarily on copyright grounds. The outcome is noteworthy because the foreign brand owner had neither trademark registrations nor applications in Vietnam at the time the opposition was filed, and the IP Office has historically applied a stringent approach to oppositions relying on copyright. The Opposition Maurten is a well-known Swedish sports nutrition brand recognized globally for its innovative hydrogel technology, which is designed to help endurance athletes fuel more effectively without gastrointestinal discomfort. The brand’s distinctive logo is characterized by clean lines and a bold black-and-white color scheme, and has long been associated with the company’s performance products. The brand’s logo is displayed above. An identical mark was filed for registration by a Vietnamese trademark squatter. In 2023, a Vietnamese individual filed an application for registration of an identical mark (Application No. 4-2023-38668), a practice commonly observed in Vietnam as trademark squatting. The brand owner engaged Tilleke & Gibbins to assist with strategy and filing an opposition to the mark. At the time, Maurten had no trademark rights or meaningful use in Vietnam, and global marketing data showed only modest figures without any local presence. Thus, to convince the IP Office to refuse the squatter’s application, instead of relying on trademark rights or use evidence, the opposition strategy centered on the copyright protection of the logo itself, as copyright arises automatically in Vietnam upon creation of the work and does not require registration. (It is worth noting, however, that the IP Office has traditionally been cautious in accepting copyright as a basis for refusing trademark applications.) On September 24, 2024, an opposition was filed on three main grounds: confusing similarity, copyright infringement of the artistic work,
Read More