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

August 29, 2014

Protecting Your IP at Trade Fairs in ASEAN

Informed Counsel

Trade fairs provide intellectual property (IP) owners with a forum to present their innovations and ideas to potential business partners and customers. They also offer the opportunity to learn from and collaborate with other innovators. Disclosing your innovations to the public in this way does, however, leave you exposed to third parties replicating and infringing on your IP.

In the following article, we will elaborate on steps that IP owners can take before, during, and after a trade fair to minimize this risk and better protect their IP.

Advance Planning

Geography. It is advised to protect your IP both in your own local jurisdiction and in the foreign markets you trade in. In relation to patents, designs, and trademarks, this means filing for registration. For copyrights and trade secrets, this usually means ensuring you can prove ownership (and in some countries, it is possible to record these as a means of proof).

Trade fairs are attended by local and foreign exhibitors, who open up and disclose their IP to a wide audience. It is strongly advised that a few hundred dollars (perhaps more for a patent) to file a trademark or design application is certainly worthwhile.

Timing. If you are unable to obtain registration in time, this should not dissuade you from applying for protection in the time leading up to the trade fair. Once your IP has been registered, it is then possible to take action against infringers (e.g., by obtaining an injunction or recovering damages). It may also be possible to notify an infringer by referring to a pending application.

It is essential that you incorporate an IP protocol into your normal business operations if you are an innovative company. Such a protocol should regularly check for new IP, and then consider whether and where to file for such new IP.

Preparations. When preparing your exhibition materials, it is advised to notify the public—where appropriate—of your IP ownership. This can be done by using ©, TM, ®, or the “Patent Pending” and patent issue number. 

It is also wise to research the trade fair organizer’s material as much as possible to:

  • Have, if needed, an IP or business center that may be able to provide assistance or advice during the trade fair;
  • Review carefully the terms and conditions of the trade fair;
  • Be able to liaise with a local lawyer and provide that lawyer with a Power of Attorney (three to four months in advance) and other proof of IP ownership so that legal action can be taken swiftly, if necessary; and
  • Obtain the list of exhibitors and make a note to check their stands.

Attending the Trade Fair

When attending the trade fair, you need to determine how much of your IP to disclose. Much of this depends on commercial considerations such as whether your product is genuinely marketable. A disclosure that is made too early may result in others seeing the nascent innovation and improving on it, claiming the innovation as their own. This is a common practice and one that is usually legal.

Exhibitors should apply for patent or design protection covering their innovation beforehand. Once this has been applied for, they can exhibit without falling foul of one of the patentability requirements of “novelty.” You can disclose certain elements of your inventions, but it is advisable to check with a patent lawyer or patent agent if you are uncertain as to whether your exhibition may prevent you from obtaining a patent in the future.

Taking Action against an Infringer

There are several measures of enforcement that can be taken against infringers:

Notification letter. This letter notifies the infringer of your IP rights. You may wish to include a statement that you are willing to discuss the issue or license the IP to them.

Cease-and-desist letter. This letter usually threatens legal proceedings and demands that the infringer ceases and desists from infringing on the IP in question. It is possible to ask for damages and legal costs in such letters.

Raid or “search-and-seize” actions. Raids are usually carried out ex parte. The procedure and relevant authority will be different in each ASEAN nation, but they can usually be done on two to three days’ notice. Civil search and seize orders from courts in such cases across ASEAN are rare, but not unheard of.

Investigate the infringer. Investigations can reveal crucial information ahead of a trial.

Issue legal proceedings. This is often a last resort. Awards from the court to recover legal costs are generally very rare in ASEAN.

Alternative dispute resolution. Some countries in ASEAN will offer mediation or arbitration services.


Visiting Trade Fairs—Summary of Best Practices

  1. Save or collect all trade fair material and exhibitor information.
  2. Take as many photos as you can.
  3. Gather as much technical data as possible about your competitors and their products.
  4. Do not threaten legal proceedings without the advice of a local lawyer. Groundless threats could result in being counter-sued.
  5. If you suspect an infringement, immediately seek the advice of local counsel.
  6. Involve the organizers of the trade fair if you believe it would assist your case.

RELATED INSIGHTS​ 

August 4, 2026
Intellectual property (IP) protection sometimes hinges on fame and recognition. However, this alone will not always be sufficient to overcome an IP dispute when it involves contractual obligations or registered rights. Below are five cases from around the world that tackle some of the basic issues in IP registration, ownership, commercialization, and enforcement. 1. USA: Taylor Swift Trademark Application Refused Taylor Swift recently filed a trademark application to register “The Life of a Showgirl,” which is the title of her 12th studio album. When examining a trademark application, the examiner considers various factors before deciding whether it should be registered. One of these factors is whether there is a likelihood of confusion (i.e., would a regular consumer mistake the origin of the trademark). In Taylor Swift’s case, the US Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO) decided that that there would be a risk of confusion. This decision was based on the existing registered trademark, “Confessions of a Showgirl,” owned by Maren Wade, which was registered in 2015. The USPTO refused Taylor Swift’s application based on the shared key distinctive element “of a showgirl,” the lack of sufficient distinguishing terms, the marks being used in overlapping markets (entertainment and performances), and because consumers may assume a common commercial source. Maren Wade then filed a lawsuit in California against Taylor Swift and her affiliated companies, arguing that Taylor Swfit’s branding is confusingly similar in structure, wording, and overall commercial impression to her registered mark. She is also drawing on the USPTO’s refusal of Taylor Swift’s application to support her argument of a likelihood of confusion. A judgment has not yet been reached in this case, but it serves as an important reminder of the importance of satisfying the essential elements required for IP registration. 2. Australia: Katy Perry v. Katie Perry In
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
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.
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