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​ 

January 13, 2023
On January 12, 2023, Myanmar’s Intellectual Property Department (IPD) announced that the country’s Trademark Law enacted in 2019 is set be enforced in March 2023. While an official notification specifying the effective date of the Trademark Law has not yet been issued, this significant announcement by the IPD indicates the impending implementation of the new trademark framework and alerts mark owners to make the necessary preparations to secure trademark protection in Myanmar under the new legal regime. The announcement confirms that trademark registrations, and the procedures for accepting payments, will commence once the Trademark Law enters into force (assuming there is no significant change from the IPD). Based on the Ministry of Commerce’s order (No. 63/2020) initiating the “soft opening” period, as well as this announcement from the IPD, it is expected that the fees for trademark registration will be issued soon, by a separate notification, before enforcement of the Trademark Law. Subsequently, applicants will be allowed to refile existing marks (recorded under Myanmar’s old system or used in the country), together with payment, up until officials announce the end of the IPD’s soft opening period (i.e., the “grand opening” of the IPD). During this time, existing marks can be refiled with the IPD either in person by the mark owner or online by an IPD-certified local representative. After the announcement of the fees and payment process for trademark registration, all mark owners who had previously filed their existing marks during the soft opening period must also pay the necessary fees for their applications. While subsequent announcements will provide details on exactly how to proceed, owners of marks that qualify to be filed during the IPD’s soft opening period should strongly consider refiling the marks with the IPD as soon as possible—if they have not done so already—to reserve
Read More
January 12, 2023
Experts from Tilleke & Gibbins’ intellectual property team have written the Vietnam chapter of Practical Law’s Intellectual Property Transactions Global Guide 2022, a high-level comparative overview of intellectual property laws and regulations across more than 30 jurisdictions. The Intellectual Property Transactions Global Guide focuses on business-related aspects of intellectual property, such as the value of intellectual assets in M&A transactions, and the licensing of IP portfolios. The topics covered include the following: IP assignment IP licensing Research and development collaborations IP audits IP aspects of M&A Lending and security interests Settlement agreements Employee and consultant agreements Key issues in IP transactions To read the Vietnam chapter, please visit the Practical Law website or click on the link below.
Read More
January 4, 2023
In early November 2022, a Thai appeals court overruled the Trademark Registrar’s decision and the Board of Trademarks’ ruling by upholding the registrability of an oil company’s trademark application for its branded service station layout. This is the latest word in a long-running dispute between ExxonMobil and the country’s Department of Intellectual Property (DIP), which had previously rejected the mark as indistinctive. ExxonMobil first filed applications in April 2015 for a trademark bearing a unique colorful drawing of the layout of a service station bearing its well-known registered “ESSO” mark in International Classes 4 and 35 in Thailand. However, the Thai Trademark Registrar refused to register the mark, arguing that the mark was devoid of inherent distinctiveness because the service station layout drawing is directly descriptive of the applied-for goods and services related to oil products. According to the Registrar, the public would not be able to distinguish between the goods and services bearing ExxonMobil’s mark and those bearing the marks of others. ExxonMobil appealed this refusal to the Board of Trademarks, which ultimately agreed that ExxonMobil’s marks are devoid of inherent distinctiveness. The Board explained that the dominant elements in the drawing consist of a common service station with fuel dispensers, which is directly related to the applied-for goods and services related to oil products. The Board also deemed that the submitted evidence was insufficient to prove that the mark had gained distinctiveness through use. ExxonMobil disagreed with these rulings and thus filed a civil complaint with the Intellectual Property and International Trade Court (IP&IT Court) to revoke the Registrar’s decisions and the Board’s rulings. The IP&IT Court examined the case and issued its judgment in favor of ExxonMobil, ruling that the marks are inherently distinctive. The Court noted that to consider a mark’s distinctiveness, it is crucial
Read More
January 4, 2023
In decisions dated 29 September 2022, the Lao Department of Intellectual Property (DIP) has cancelled two trademark registrations based on their confusing similarity to earlier marks. An official from the DIP unofficially confirmed that these decisions are the first of their kind in Laos and, as such, constitute a positive step that puts legal provisions into actual practice. Background In Laos, cancellation proceedings against a registered mark are not common, as the number of applications in the country is relatively low and thorough substantive examination only began to be carried out in recent years. There was previously no precedent for how cancellation decisions would be handled, despite the Law on Intellectual Property (No. 38/NA of 15 November 2017) allowing a third party to file a petition for the cancellation of a registered mark if it can be proven that the mark should not be granted registration. The Law on Intellectual Property states that a third party may object to, or request the cancellation of, a trademark registration within five years of its date of publication in the Official Gazette. However, it is difficult to ascertain how to calculate the five-year period if the mark was registered before June 2019, as publication in the Official Gazette was first made available at that time. This could mean that the five-year statutory limitation for trademark cancellation in Laos could start from June 2024, but how this will be applied in practice remains to be seen. The Case This case began when Siam Kubota Corporation Co Ltd took action against two marks that looked similar to its own earlier marks (see Figure 1): Figure 1. Earlier registered marks Siam Kubota registered its marks in 2009 for goods in Class 12, and has extensively used and protected the marks in Laos. After reviewing its
Read More