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

April 18, 2014

Protecting Trade Secrets Essential to Stay Ahead

Subscribe to Updates
Bangkok Post, Corporate Counsellor Column

Intellectual property rights (IPR) protection is a key part of success in today’s business environment. As manufacturing companies grow, it is inevitable for corporate management—regardless of the type of industry—to shift its focus from tangible products to the intangible assets of intellectual property.

While trademarks, copyrights, and patents are a central focus in discussions of IPR among business owners, there is another important intellectual property right that can improve a company’s competitive advantage and help it differentiate its business and/or products from those of its competitors: the “trade secret.”

Trade secrets are protected in Thailand under the Trade Secret Act (TSA) B.E. 2545 (2002). The principal rule of a trade secret is that it can be protected as long as it is undisclosed.

Section 3 of the TSA states: “Trade secrets mean trade information not yet publicly known or not yet accessible by persons who are normally connected with the information, the commercial values of which derive from its secrecy and that the controller of the trade secrets has taken appropriate measures to maintain the secrecy.”

“Trade information means any medium that conveys the meaning of a statement, facts, or other information irrespective of its method and forms. It shall also include formulas, patterns, compilations or assembled works, programs, methods, techniques, or processes.”

Trade secrets can be categorized into two types:

  • Industrial secrets, which consist of trade information related to technical matters such as a manufacturing process or a chemical formula.
  • Commercial secrets, which consist of trade information related to sales methods, contract forms, customer lists, advertisement techniques, etc.

Unlike patent protection, there is no expiration date for trade secret protection and no registration procedure is required to obtain trade secret protection. Instead, trade secrets shall be protected as long as they are deemed secret. As the length of time for trade secret protection can be short or long, depending on the ability of the company to maintain the secrecy of its valuable information, it is therefore very important for the company to understand how to maintain and manage its information.

In recognition of this need, the Trade Secret Act stipulates that the controller of a trade secret take “appropriate measures” to maintain the secret. “Appropriate measures” can vary, depending on the type of information. It is recommended, however, that the company should, at the very least, implement a “confidentiality policy” among its employees, especially for those whose work relates to technical information, production, research and development, as well as sales and marketing.

A “non-disclosure term” should be standard in the company’s employment agreements. Also, special steps should be taken to ensure that employees have proper authorization to access any of the company’s important information. These steps should include such measures as passwords, fingerprint scans, and iris scans, among any other method for identification.

Under the law, the trade secret owner has the right to disclose, take, or use his trade secret, and/or permit others to use his right along with any necessary condition to maintain its secrecy. Acts amounting to infringement of a trade secret right under the TSA include disclosure, deprivation, or use of a trade secret without the consent of the owner in a manner contrary to honest trade practices. In so doing, the infringer must be aware or has reasonable cause to be aware that such act is contrary to honest trade practices.

Where there is clear evidence that a trade secret infringement has been committed or is imminent, the affected controller is entitled to apply to the Intellectual Property and International Trade Court (IP&IT Court) for the following injunctions:

  • A preliminary injunction ordering the violator to temporarily stop or refrain from infringing the trade secret, whether before or after the filing of a suit with the Court; and
  • A permanent injunction prohibiting the violator from infringing the trade secret. In addition to damages for the actual damage suffered, in trade secret litigation the court may include in the damages for the plaintiff an accounting of profits accrued from or in connection with the infringement by the infringer.

The greatest advantage of trade secret protection is that a company can maintain secrecy and know-how. Also, there is no time limitation for protection as long as the secrets are deemed secret. Therefore, if a company decides to obtain protection for its know-how through the TSA, it must ensure that it can manage and protect its secret through company capital and/or human effort.

As to whether protection is obtained through a patent or trade secret, it is recommended that a company should weigh the value of the know-how against its ability and capital to manage and maintain the secret. If it is valuable, trade secret protection may be worthwhile for the company to maintain long-term protection.

Related Professionals

Practices

Intellectual Property

Location

RELATED INSIGHTS​ 

August 30, 2024
As in many other countries, registered trademarks in Indonesia that are not used for a given period of time can be canceled. A recent decision (Decision No. 144/PUU-XXI/2023) from the country’s Constitutional Court has extended the non-use cancellation period from three years to five years, applicable from July 30, 2024. This ruling could have a major impact on trademark holders in the country. Background of the Case Article 74 of Indonesia’s Trademark Law of 2016 specifies that trademarks can be canceled if they go unused in the trade of goods or services for three consecutive years from the date of registration or last use. This provision is aligned with the Paris Convention and the TRIPs Agreement. On October 27, 2023, an Indonesian individual named Ricky Thio asked the Constitutional Court to examine the constitutionality of Article 74, arguing that it opened a pathway for third parties to eliminate trademarks owned by small and medium-sized enterprises (SMEs), and did not provide certainty to his registered trademark in terms of the period of protection. Additionally, he argued that the period of three consecutive years was burdensome for SMEs, and asked the court to void Article 74 and add force majeure circumstances—such as Covid-19—as an exemption to non-use cancellation. Mr. Thio submitted this request while he was defending his trademark registration from a non-use cancellation request filed by Zhejiang Dahua Technology Co., Ltd. In his defense to that cancellation request, Mr. Thio explained that the non-use of the trademark was due to the Covid-19 pandemic. The cancellation case followed a different judicial pathway, and was under appeal before the Supreme Court at the time Mr. Thio filed his request for judicial review with the Constitutional Court. Mr. Thio’s case also attracted the submission of an amicus brief—a relatively new trend in Indonesia—from
Read More
August 30, 2024
In 2023, Vietnam’s Intellectual Property Rights Infringement Prevention Cooperation Program reported that 776 cases of IPR infringement were resolved nationwide. Of these, 546 were addressed through administrative measures, while criminal proceedings were initiated in just five cases. These statistics clearly show that administrative measures overwhelmingly dominate the response to counterfeit goods, with criminal actions being relatively rare. This raises an intriguing question: Why do IPR holders prefer administrative routes over criminal measures in Vietnam? And what challenges and obstacles make criminal enforcement less commonly pursued in these cases? Overlapping legal provisions Under Vietnam’s Penal Code, two key offenses address counterfeit goods: Manufacturing and trading in counterfeit goods under Article 192. Manufacturing and trading in industrial property rights-infringing goods under Article 226. Both provisions regulate counterfeit goods, yet they suffer from a lack of clear definitions and guidelines for application. Article 192 does not explicitly define “counterfeit goods”. Instead, authorities refer to Article 3.7 of Decree No. 98/2020/ND-CP, as amended, which outlines several categories of counterfeit goods, including: (i) utility counterfeits (goods not meeting normal expectations of usage or function), (ii) substandard goods, (iii) counterfeit goods based on misrepresentation, and (iv) counterfeit stamps, labels, and packaging. Meanwhile, Article 226 specifically deals with counterfeit goods that infringe trademark rights. These “trademark-counterfeit goods” are defined under Article 213.2 of the IP Law as goods or packaging bearing trademarks or signs that are identical or confusingly similar to protected trademarks for the same goods, used without the trademark owner’s permission. In this regard, “counterfeit goods” and “trademark-counterfeit goods” are treated as distinct, non-overlapping concepts, each corresponding to a separate offense. However, in practice, there is often a gray area where the two overlap. Many cases involve infringing goods that meet the criteria for both categories, allowing authorities to apply both regulations simultaneously. For
Read More
August 30, 2024
With the emergence of online marketplaces and e-commerce platforms, consumers have transformed their ways of engaging in transactions, gaining unprecedented convenience and access to a vast array of products. These platforms allow small businesses and individual entrepreneurs to reach a wider audience in an increasingly competitive market. Challenges in Tracing Online Infringers The growth of these online marketplaces and e-commerce platforms has also given rise to challenges, particularly in locating the actual identity of online infringers and combating intellectual property infringement activities. Online infringers often take advantage of anonymity to offer counterfeit products for sale on their platforms. Not only do these online infringing activities violate the rights of IP owners, but they also involve the sale of counterfeit products that are often manufactured with inferior quality and may pose significant risks to consumers’ health and safety. In today’s modern world, tracing the actual identity of online infringers proves challenging, as infringers adopt numerous methods to conceal their identity. The most frequently used method is using a fake name and address when dispatching parcels to consumers, making it difficult to verify the seller’s identity and the location of the sender on the parcel package. Some infringers exploit cash-on-delivery logistics services to prevent the disclosure of their identity, such as bank account numbers and bank account owner names, which would typically be required for direct payments. Instead, the shipping company collects the payment on their behalf, allowing the infringers to remain anonymous and making it more difficult to find their actual identity. Thailand’s New Regulations on Cash-on-Delivery Logistics Services Recently, the Committee on Contracts of Thailand’s Consumer Protection Board announced the Notification regarding Stipulation of Cash-on-Delivery Logistics Services as a Controlled-Receipt Business B.E. 2567 (2024) under the Consumer Protection Act B.E. 2522 (1979) in the Thai Royal Gazette dated July
Read More
August 7, 2024
A recent case at the Myanmar Competition Commission has set a significant precedent in the country’s approach to unfair competition practices. The case, involving a Thai manufacturer of cement grout and tile adhesive products and a local Myanmar producer, highlighted the Commission’s willingness to address issues of deceptive marketing and unfair competition. Background The case centered around a Thai manufacturer who has been distributing their cement grout and tile adhesive products in Myanmar for many years through local distribution agents. The company had established a well-known brand and a strong reputation for quality in the Myanmar market. In recent years, the Thai company discovered that a local individual in Myanmar was manufacturing and selling similar products with packaging nearly identical to their own. The local producer was using the same mark device, color, and packaging design themes, and the products contained deceptive information. Legal Proceedings After an initial cease-and-desist letter failed to resolve the issue, a complaint was submitted to the Myanmar Competition Commission. The case was notable because the Commission typically does not address issues of copying designs, marks, colors, or packaging themes. However, the complaint emphasized that the local individual was misleading customers and competing unfairly by using deceptive information and copying distinctive designs and themes. Lawyers from Tilleke & Gibbins, representing the Thai manufacturer, provided extensive documentation proving their client’s long-standing presence in the Myanmar market and the local individual’s deceptive practices. The Commission’s Investigation Committee conducted a thorough investigation, including market surveys and hearings involving both parties. Commission’s Decision After nearly a year of deliberation, on July 4, 2024, the Decision-Making Committee of the Myanmar Competition Commission ruled in favor of the Thai manufacturer. The decision required the local individual to: Immediately cease the production and distribution of cement grout and tile adhesive products bearing
Read More