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​ 

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,
June 10, 2026
For multinational franchisors operating in Thailand, a key risk after franchise termination is that former outlets may continue operating in ways that could easily mislead consumers into believing they remain within the authorized network. To justify such operations, former franchisees often argue that the termination was invalid or ineffective. As a result, these cases are often treated as contractual disputes, making it difficult for franchisors to obtain injunctive relief before a final judgment confirms that the termination was lawful. Franchisors face significant commercial and reputational harm during lengthy proceedings, including consumer confusion, disruption to franchise restructuring, and damage to brand reputation and customer trust. In an encouraging development, the Thai court in a 2025 case responded to the problem of unauthorized post-termination franchise operations by granting interim relief, recognizing broader brand and consumer harm, and awarding substantial damages, highlighting a successful litigation strategy of framing the dispute not merely as a contractual termination issue but as trademark infringement causing ongoing commercial injury. The Subway Case From December 2024 to mid-2025, an unauthorized “Subway®” franchise operation in Thailand attracted substantial public and media attention. Reports and online discussions about unauthorized Subway® stores circulated widely after complaints arose about food quality and customer experience at certain outlets that were allegedly operating after their franchise rights had expired. Because these stores continued to use Subway® trademarks, trade dress, and overall commercial appearance, many consumers were unable to distinguish them from authorized operations, resulting in reputational risks and customer confusion that affected the franchisor’s brand and franchise system in Thailand. Subway treated this matter with the utmost seriousness and moved promptly to protect its brand, franchise system, and customers. It filed a civil action with the IP&IT Court seeking a permanent injunction and damages. During the proceedings, the court granted a preliminary injunction
May 22, 2026
Intellectual property specialists from Tilleke & Gibbins in Vietnam have contributed an updated Intellectual Property Transactions in Vietnam overview for Thomson Reuters Practical Law, an online publication that provides comprehensive legal guides for jurisdictions worldwide. The Vietnam overview was authored by Linh Thi Mai Nguyen, Thanh Phuong Vu, Chi Lan Dang, Son Thai Hoang, and Duc Anh Tran. The chapter provides a high-level examination of key aspects of IP transactions law in Vietnam, including IP assignment and licensing, research and development collaborations, IP in mergers and acquisitions (M&A), lending and taking security over intellectual property rights, settlement agreements, employee- and consultant-created IP, competition law, taxation, and non-tariff trade barriers. Key topics covered in the chapter include: IP assignment: Basis and formalities for assignments of patents, utility models, trade marks, copyright, design rights, trade secrets, confidential information, and domain names in Vietnam. IP licensing: Scope, formalities, and recordal requirements for licensing patents, trade marks, copyright, design rights, and trade secrets. Research and development collaborations: Treatment of improvements, derivatives, and joint ownership of IP, including exploitation and enforcement issues. IP aspects of M&A and security: Due diligence, warranties, transfer formalities, and taking security over intellectual property rights. Practical Law, a legal reference resource from Thomson Reuters, publishes a range of guides for hundreds of jurisdictions and practice areas. The Intellectual Property Transactions Global Guide is a valuable resource for legal practitioners seeking comparative insight into transactional IP issues across multiple jurisdictions. To view the latest version of the Intellectual Property Transactions in Vietnam overview, please visit the Practical Law website and enroll in the free Practical Law trial to gain full access.
May 13, 2026
Laos has significantly broadened its industrial property administrative review framework, most notably by extending it to cover copyright and related rights for the first time. Decision No. 0306/IC on the Administrative Resolution of Disputes Concerning Industrial Property Registration, New Plant Variety Registration, and Copyright and Related Rights Recordation took effect on April 24, 2026, replacing the previous rules from 2023, which had covered only industrial property and new plant variety matters. Decision No. 0306/IC governs how Laos’ Department of Intellectual Property (DIP) and provincial offices handle formal challenges to industrial property registrations and applications. The proceedings covered include oppositions to pending applications, appeals of refused applications, requests for cancellation of existing registrations, and—newly—disputes concerning the recordation and interpretation of copyright and related rights. These administrative proceedings within the DIP are heard by a government-appointed Administrative Dispute Resolution Committee, which functions similarly to the opposition and review boards found in other jurisdictions. Key Changes Decision No. 0306/IC covers four categories of administrative proceedings: Oppositions: Third-party challenges to a pending industrial property application before it is granted. Refusal appeals: Challenges to the DIP’s decision to refuse their application. Cancellation or deletion requests: Applications to invalidate an existing registered right on the grounds that it should not have been granted. Copyright and related rights disputes: Challenges to or interpretations of copyright and related rights recordations, including determinations of whether a work qualifies for copyright protection under Lao law. The most significant development is the committee’s new jurisdiction over copyright matters. The committee is now empowered to resolve disputes concerning copyright and related rights recordation—this includes the authority to determine whether a work qualifies for copyright protection and to interpret the scope of an existing recordation. Parties who believe a competitor has improperly recorded copyright over a work, or who wish to contest