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

Subscribe to Updates
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.
Download Full Article
Related Professionals

Practices

Intellectual Property

Location

RELATED INSIGHTS​ 

June 24, 2026
Patent enablement requirements are provided under Article 102 of Vietnam’s Law on Intellectual Property (IP Law). In particular, a patent specification must “fully and clearly disclose the nature of the invention to such an extent that, based on the specification, a person having ordinary skill in the relevant art can implement the invention.” In pharmaceutical and biotechnology patents, this requirement is more complicated and subject to more rigorous assessment. The Patent Examination Guidelines (Guidelines) of the Intellectual Property Office of Vietnam (IP Office) were amended in March 2026 to introduce Annexes III and IV for the pharmaceutical and biotechnology sectors, in which Annex III provides detailed guidelines on the assessment of specification requirements. These amendments were made under a project for strengthening capacity in industrial property examination between the Japan International Cooperation Agency (JICA) and the IP Office. Annex III provides detailed instructions on how examiners assess enablement in a pharmaceutical or biotechnology application, and offers examples of acceptable and unacceptable descriptions with regard to the enablement aspect. Enablement Requirements in Pharma and Biotech Patents Article 12.7 of Circular 10/2026/TT-BKHCN (Circular 10) adds to the requirements of Article 102 of the IP Law that the description must demonstrate the novelty, inventive step, and industrial applicability of the technical solution. For pharmaceutical composition subject matters, Article 12.9 of Circular 10 sets out that the description must present the results of clinical trials and/or the pharmacological effects of the claimed pharmaceutical composition, and must include at least the following information: Substance/mixture used. Testing method (system) employed. Information on the test results. Correlation between the pharmacological effects obtained from the tests and the application of the pharmaceutical product in the prevention, diagnosis, and treatment of diseases. The Guidelines note that pharmacological study results should be presented in a quantified manner, and pharmacological
Read More
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