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​ 

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
May 22, 2026
Intellectual property specialists from Tilleke & Gibbins in Vietnam have contributed an updated Intellectual Property Transactions in Vietnam overview for Thomson Reuters Practical Law, an online publication that provides comprehensive legal guides for jurisdictions worldwide. The Vietnam overview was authored by Linh Thi Mai Nguyen, Thanh Phuong Vu, Chi Lan Dang, Son Thai Hoang, and Duc Anh Tran. The chapter provides a high-level examination of key aspects of IP transactions law in Vietnam, including IP assignment and licensing, research and development collaborations, IP in mergers and acquisitions (M&A), lending and taking security over intellectual property rights, settlement agreements, employee- and consultant-created IP, competition law, taxation, and non-tariff trade barriers. Key topics covered in the chapter include: IP assignment: Basis and formalities for assignments of patents, utility models, trade marks, copyright, design rights, trade secrets, confidential information, and domain names in Vietnam. IP licensing: Scope, formalities, and recordal requirements for licensing patents, trade marks, copyright, design rights, and trade secrets. Research and development collaborations: Treatment of improvements, derivatives, and joint ownership of IP, including exploitation and enforcement issues. IP aspects of M&A and security: Due diligence, warranties, transfer formalities, and taking security over intellectual property rights. Practical Law, a legal reference resource from Thomson Reuters, publishes a range of guides for hundreds of jurisdictions and practice areas. The Intellectual Property Transactions Global Guide is a valuable resource for legal practitioners seeking comparative insight into transactional IP issues across multiple jurisdictions. To view the latest version of the Intellectual Property Transactions in Vietnam overview, please visit the Practical Law website and enroll in the free Practical Law trial to gain full access.
May 13, 2026
Laos has significantly broadened its industrial property administrative review framework, most notably by extending it to cover copyright and related rights for the first time. Decision No. 0306/IC on the Administrative Resolution of Disputes Concerning Industrial Property Registration, New Plant Variety Registration, and Copyright and Related Rights Recordation took effect on April 24, 2026, replacing the previous rules from 2023, which had covered only industrial property and new plant variety matters. Decision No. 0306/IC governs how Laos’ Department of Intellectual Property (DIP) and provincial offices handle formal challenges to industrial property registrations and applications. The proceedings covered include oppositions to pending applications, appeals of refused applications, requests for cancellation of existing registrations, and—newly—disputes concerning the recordation and interpretation of copyright and related rights. These administrative proceedings within the DIP are heard by a government-appointed Administrative Dispute Resolution Committee, which functions similarly to the opposition and review boards found in other jurisdictions. Key Changes Decision No. 0306/IC covers four categories of administrative proceedings: Oppositions: Third-party challenges to a pending industrial property application before it is granted. Refusal appeals: Challenges to the DIP’s decision to refuse their application. Cancellation or deletion requests: Applications to invalidate an existing registered right on the grounds that it should not have been granted. Copyright and related rights disputes: Challenges to or interpretations of copyright and related rights recordations, including determinations of whether a work qualifies for copyright protection under Lao law. The most significant development is the committee’s new jurisdiction over copyright matters. The committee is now empowered to resolve disputes concerning copyright and related rights recordation—this includes the authority to determine whether a work qualifies for copyright protection and to interpret the scope of an existing recordation. Parties who believe a competitor has improperly recorded copyright over a work, or who wish to contest
April 30, 2026
Vietnam’s Decree No. 134/2026/ND‑CP, which took effect on 9 April 2026, plays an important role in detailing and implementing Vietnam’s Intellectual Property (IP) Law in the context of rapid digital transformation and the growing application of artificial intelligence (AI). The new decree provides comprehensive guidance on the application of copyright and related‑rights regulations, addressing key issues such as authorship, ownership, statutory exceptions and limitations, registration procedures, and enforcement mechanisms. Through these measures, Decree 134 seeks to achieve an appropriate balance between safeguarding the legitimate interests of rightsholders and fostering innovation, research, and technological advancement, thereby strengthening the state’s framework for the effective management, protection, and exploitation of intellectual property in the digital and AI‑driven environment. Some notable aspects of Decree 134 are discussed below. Copyright for AI-Created Works Decree 134 provides important guidance on the determination of copyright and related rights in works created with the assistance of AI. Article 5a reaffirms the principle that human creativity remains central to copyright protection, clarifying that copyright or related rights arise only where a human makes a substantial and decisive intellectual contribution, exercises effective control over the creative outcome, and assumes responsibility for the content and its legality. At the same time, the provision confirms that AI is regarded solely as a technological tool rather than a rights‑holding subject, thus ensuring consistency with the fundamental concepts of authorship and ownership under the IP Law. By introducing requirements on transparency, proof of human contribution, and compliance with AI‑specific labelling and technical marking obligations, Decree 134 establishes a clear and enforceable legal framework for the responsible use of AI in creative activities. Lawful Use of Copyrighted Texts and Data Article 37a of Decree 134 sets out the specific conditions under which copyrighted texts and data may be lawfully used for scientific research, experimentation,