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

December 14, 2012

Managing Intellectual Property for Entrepreneurs

Bangkok Post, Corporate Counsellor Column

On September 10, 2009, the Thai government established the National Creative Economy Policy Committee to set guidelines and translate policy into action by various government agencies. This led to the Creative Thailand program, which was intended to encourage the growth and competitiveness of businesses through creativity and research and development. Intellectual property rights (IPRs) play a crucial role in moving this policy forward.

Although the government has attempted to promote IPRs to the public through several channels, including publications and conferences, many business owners—especially entrepreneurs and new ventures—fail to understand the key link between IPRs and the success of their enterprise. If you are an entrepreneur or new venture, this article will provide you with guidelines for effectively managing your IPRs.

Guidance for IPR Users

Some companies develop their own IPRs, while others are simply IPR users. The latter model does not rely on creating IPRs; instead, the company may seek permission from the rights holder to use the rights. For businesses such as distributors and franchisees that rely on this model, there are two important keys to be considered:

• Conduct an IP survey: Entrepreneurs and new ventures should supplement their standard market surveys by conducting an IP survey in order to understand what IPRs already exist in the market and how to avoid infringing them.

For example, if you are going to use a new brand with your products, you should conduct a trademark search at the Department of Intellectual Property (DIP) to determine whether anyone has already registered the same or a similar mark in Thailand. When introducing a new technology, a patent search will show whether your new product—or the technology involved in producing it—is already protected as a patent in Thailand. For complex technologies, a more thorough “Freedom-to-Operate” report from an IP lawyer may be required to make sure your product does not infringe an existing patent registration.

• Register your licensing agreement: If your business operates by using IPRs owned by others, you need to register your trademark licensing agreement or patent licensing agreement with the DIP. If you fail to do so, the agreement will be void and non-enforceable between the affected parties.

In a franchise agreement that includes a clause for the franchisor to grant trademark or patent rights to the franchisee, the franchise agreement should similarly be registered as a licensing agreement.

By registering the licensing agreement, you will protect your company when you use or sell products bearing the registered IPR, and the licensee or franchisee can fully exercise the rights under the law.

Additional Steps for IPR Owners

Companies that move beyond merely using IPRs and begin to innovate will likely hold a wide range of IPRs—not only trademarks, copyrights, patents, and trade secrets, but also domain names, websites, know-how, and more. These IPRs are important company assets and must be managed effectively so they can contribute to revenue growth and profitability. Companies that are creating their own IPRs should be sure to take the following four steps:

1. Take an initial inventory: Knowing what IP you have, what your IPRs are worth, how your IPRs are protected, and how they should be protected will help you get the maximum value from your creation and development. This can be difficult for a new venture, which may not know much about IP law and the scope of IPR protection. At this first stage, you may need to consult with your company’s legal adviser. Then you can evaluate the IPRs within the company’s broader portfolio of assets and implement the proper measures to manage them.

2. Ensure compliance: By obtaining full protection of your IPRs under the law, you can ensure compliance while also contributing to your company’s bottom line. For example, if you create a new trademark or brand, you should register the trademark or brand with the DIP. If you come up with a unique idea or invention, obtaining patent protection will give you the exclusive right over the invention and prevent unauthorized use by your competitors. Your company may consider recording copyrighted works with the DIP to prove the company’s IPRs more easily in the future.

Without the proper protection, some IP may be walking right out the company’s door through employees, former employees, or visitors who are using e-mail, data storage devices, the telephone, or just taking things home. Today’s employees may be tomorrow’s competitors.

3. Create an IP portfolio: After initially managing your IPRs, collecting and keeping evidence to prove that your company is the true owner of these IPRs is necessary so that you will be prepared in the event of any infringement or opposition in the future. Trademark owners should collect documents demonstrating the use of the trademark in Thailand, such as advertisements, invoices showing sales figures of the mark, etc., to prove the well-known status of the mark in Thailand. It is also crucial to manage the deadline or expiration date for each of your IPR registrations to ensure timely payment of annuity fees or renewal fees.

4. Enforce and exploit rights: Monitoring and enforcing your IPRs is also essential, as the more popular your products become, the higher the chance your IPRs will be infringed. If you learn that a competitor has infringed your IPRs, you should enforce your rights through the relevant government authorities such as through raids against infringers or administrative methods, such as sending a cease-and-desist letter or mediation through the DIP.

By taking the simple steps outlined above, you can ensure your IPRs are well protected, which in turn will set a strong foundation for future innovation, faster growth, and improved profitability.

RELATED INSIGHTS​ 

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
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
Tilleke & Gibbins’ intellectual property specialists have authored the Thailand chapter of Trade Secrets 2026 from Chambers and Partners. This global guide examines the legal frameworks governing trade secret protection, enforcement, and litigation across jurisdictions worldwide. The Thailand chapter provides a comprehensive overview of the country’s legal regime for protecting confidential business information, covering the legal framework, trade secret misappropriation, litigation procedures, remedies, and dispute resolution. Some topics covered include: Protectable trade secrets Reasonable measures to maintain secrecy Employee confidentiality Trade secret licensing Civil and criminal remedies Litigation procedures and injunctions Damages and other remedies Mediation and arbitration The guide also examines practical issues relating to safeguarding trade secrets, defending against allegations of misappropriation, and managing trade secret disputes in Thailand. Chambers and Partners’ Global Practice Guides provide in-house counsel with authoritative commentary on practical legal issues affecting business, enabling readers to compare legislation and procedures across multiple jurisdictions. The Thailand chapter of Trade Secrets 2026 is available as a PDF through the button below. The full guide can be accessed for free on the Chambers and Partners website.