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​ 

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
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
Read More