Thailand’s aim of hosting entertainment complexes that include casinos is moving forward with the cabinet’s approval in principle of the draft Entertainment Complex Business Act on January 13, 2025. In fact, Thailand has studied the pros and cons of allowing the operation of entertainment complexes since March 2019. Though the initial surge of global interest died down during the COVID-19 pandemic, the country renewed its efforts with the recent draft law. This is part of the government’s aim of bringing parts of the informal economy (or shadow economy) and the underground economy—estimated to be more than 50% of Thailand’s GDP—into the revenue system. While many authors have provided analyses of the bill’s contents, this article explores how the enforcement of the Entertainment Complex Bill after its passage would relate to various aspects of intellectual property (IP) in the casino business in the context of Thai law. Below are some examples of the potential effects of the draft legislation on IP rights in Thailand. Public Order and Public Policy Under Thai law, contradiction of public order, good morality, or public policy is grounds for denying IP protection. With the eventual passage and enforcement of the Entertainment Complex Bill, IP rights related to gaming that used to be regarded as contrary to the public order and received no protection under the current law would become eligible for legal protection and considered registrable under the law. This is similar to what happened recently with cannabis in Thailand. Legalization of cannabis opened up pathways for trademark and patent protection in this industry. IP in the casino industry encompasses a wide range of assets, including patents, trademarks, copyrights, and trade secrets. These IP rights protect the unique features of casino games, gaming machines, software, and branding elements. For instance, in Thailand patents can cover

The fourth round of negotiations of the EU-Thailand Free Trade Agreement (FTA) wrapped up in Bangkok in November 2024. Now that the latest summary report is out, it is worth highlighting some of the intellectual property (IP)-related changes we might see once the chapter is complete. Copyright If Thailand were to agree to follow the EU proposal, we would see the term of protection for copyright extended. Currently under Thai law, protection is the life of the author plus fifty years. This is twenty years less than the EU proposal. It seems that copyright is one area the two sides have yet to agree on, and it is no wonder as agreeing to follow Thai law would deprive authors from the EU of an additional twenty years of protection post-death. On the other hand, Thailand agreeing to the EU proposal would likely result in legislative change in the country to align domestic law with the FTA. We may also see more robust and streamlined collective management organizations (CMOs) in Thailand. The current proposal calls for each party to promote cooperation between their CMOs, which would extend to transparency over their running, including revenue and representation agreements. Thailand does currently have CMOs within the territory, and the Department of Intellectual Property (DIP) has a voluntary CMO code. However, it is unclear whether existing practice will be sufficient for EU rightsholders. CMOs have been an area that is difficult to regulate as there has been a balancing act between tightening the examination of reporting and not wanting to limit the freedom of rightsholders and how they commercialize their IP. Trademarks There is a fair amount of overlap between the Trademark Act in Thailand and the EU proposals. However, it is unclear to what degree the existing laws would satisfy the requests

A proposal to establish a specialized Intellectual Property Court in Vietnam has been a topic of significant interest among IP practitioners for the past 20 years. It was thus a major breakthrough when the new Law on the Organization of People’s Courts was ratified in 2024, stipulating in Article 4.1(dd) that the Vietnamese court system would include a specialized first-instance IP Court. The new law took effect on January 1, 2025, replacing the Law on the Organization of People’s Courts of 2014, A groundbreaking law This breakthrough can be viewed from multiple perspectives. First of all, in terms of organization, this is the first time, after numerous considerations, that Vietnam has officially recognized the importance of the IP field and the need to establish a specialized adjudicative body due to the field’s unique nature. The establishment of a specialized first-instance IP Court is expected to lead to fundamental changes in the practice of developing and applying IP law. While the establishment of IP rights such as trademarks, patents, and plant varieties is managed by administrative agencies such as the Intellectual Property Office, the Copyright Office, and the Crop Production Department, which seem unlikely to change their functions and tasks, there could be significant changes in the enforcement of these rights, which has been a persistent issue in Vietnam’s IP law system. Thus far, in practice, the enforcement of IP rights in Vietnam has relied overwhelmingly on administrative measures over civil measures. Civil measures, typically involving court proceedings under which the matter will be submitted to a court for settlement, are not appealing to disputing parties, especially IP rights owners. The absence of a specialized court has led to many IP cases being handled by judges without any knowledge or experience in this specialized field, resulting in confusion, misconceptions about

With intellectual property playing an ever-increasing role in economic development, the need to harness, promote, and protect ASEAN innovation remains urgent as integration progresses. Among its objectives, the ASEAN Economic Community 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 increasing IP generation and further committing to global IP regimes, the region is increasingly looking toward sophisticated IP ownership and holding structures. IP Holding Companies ASEAN-based companies continue to centralize ownership of their IP assets in offshore holding and licensing vehicles—an approach multinational companies headquartered elsewhere 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, and other partners 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 minimize tax, gain tax benefits or concessions, protect IP from bankruptcy or other claims against the parent company, and focus management attention on the IP portfolio as an income generator. Tax and IP Holding Companies Tax is the primary reason most companies park their IP in separate IP holding vehicles. Sometimes, companies choose to establish their IP holding company in a no-tax, low-tax, or preferred-tax jurisdiction close to their home country. The selected jurisdiction should also be a country with a large and well-established tax treaty network. Double taxation treaties are key considerations in jurisdiction shopping. If the IP assets need to be pledged as security for future borrowings or if they are to be included