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​ 

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
Read More
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.
Read More
July 27, 2026
In March 2025, Thailand’s Central Intellectual Property and International Trade Court (IP&IT Court) issued a landmark judgment in favor of Luckin Coffee, China’s leading retail coffee chain. The judgment marked a significant turnaround following earlier trademark litigation involving Luckin Coffee from 2021 to 2023 that had generated widespread public attention and raised questions about the protection available to legitimate foreign brand owners in Thailand. In a significant subsequent development, Thailand’s Court of Appeal for Specialized Cases has now affirmed the IP&IT Court’s judgment in its entirety. The appellate decision brings clarity to one of Thailand’s most closely watched trademark disputes. Significantly, this is the first case in Thailand to formally recognize the trademark squatting principle. The Court of Appeal confirmed that Luckin Coffee has a better right to the disputed mark and ordered cancellation of the defendants’ trademark registration—a key application of the “better right” doctrine. The court also upheld the substantial damages awarded at first instance, providing important guidance on assessing harm from systematic trademark squatting. Award-Winning Judgment Affirmed in Its Entirety The significance of the first-instance judgment extended beyond the outcome for Luckin Coffee. The IP&IT Court judgment was subsequently recognized in the IP&IT Court’s Distinguished Judgment Awards in 2025, reflecting the complexity, novelty, and legal significance of the issues considered in the case. The defendants nevertheless appealed the judgment, challenging several key aspects of the IP&IT Court’s decision. Luckin Coffee continued to entrust Tilleke & Gibbins as their sole attorney to pursue the case at the appellate level. After considering the defendants’ appeal and Luckin Coffee’s submissions in response, the Court of Appeal affirmed the first-instance judgment in its entirety. The judgment was announced on July 8, 2026. Better Right to the Marks The Court of Appeal confirmed Luckin Coffee’s superior rights. The orders include cancellation
Read More
July 24, 2026
As food innovation continues to accelerate, manufacturers are increasingly introducing ingredients derived from new sources, produced using novel technologies, or lacking a significant history of human consumption. While these innovations create new opportunities for the food industry, they also raise important questions regarding consumer safety. For this reason, many jurisdictions, including Thailand, the European Union, Australia and New Zealand, Canada, and Singapore, require a premarket safety assessment for novel food ingredients before they can be placed on the market. The objective of this assessment is to ensure that each ingredient is safe for its intended use and level of consumption, does not present toxicological, allergenic, microbiological, or nutritional concerns, and will not mislead consumers. Scientific authorities typically evaluate the ingredient’s identity, manufacturing process, composition, specifications, anticipated dietary exposure, toxicological information, nutritional impact, and history of use before determining whether it can be marketed. Against this background, the Thai Food and Drug Administration (FDA) recently took an important step toward improving regulatory transparency by publishing, for the first time, a consolidated public list of substances that have successfully completed the Thai FDA’s safety assessment process, including substances determined to be novel foods and those determined not to fall within the novel food category. The list identifies the approved substances, the corresponding manufacturers or importers, approval dates, and the approved conditions of use. Although the publication does not change the existing legal framework governing novel food approvals, it provides businesses with greater visibility into the Thai FDA’s regulatory precedents and the types of substances that have previously been accepted through the safety assessment process. The full announcement is available on the Thai FDA’s website. As the list is now publicly available, it also provides useful insight into the types of substances that have successfully completed the Thai FDA’s safety assessment process.
Read More