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

February 20, 2017

Resolving IP Disputes Through Arbitration

Subscribe to Updates
Informed Counsel

Intellectual property (IP) disputes may take several forms, including infringement of IP rights, misappropriation of business goodwill and reputation, industrial espionage such as stealing a competitor’s trade secret, unfair competition such as counterfeiting and false advertising, or breach of an agreement to use IP, among many others. Traditionally, IP disputes have been brought before a court. But in recent years, alternative dispute resolution (ADR) has emerged as an increasingly attractive option for resolving such disputes, as parties may wish to avoid court litigation.

Arbitration is a form of ADR that provides a private and confidential procedure to resolve disputes involving IP. Parties may choose arbitration in advance through contractual arrangements or may decide after a dispute arises that arbitration should be pursued as an alternative to conventional litigation. Courts of many countries, including the Central Intellectual Property and International Court of Thailand, offer court-sponsored, nonbinding arbitration as a method of decreasing their caseloads. The arbitration proceedings may include fact-finding, document exchange, briefing and testimony of witnesses, etc. Arbitration awards or the arbitrator’s decisions are legally binding on the parties to the dispute and are subject to judicial review only in extremely limited circumstances.

Arbitration has several advantages over court litigation:

  • Confidentiality. The privacy of arbitration is attractive to parties who may not want to reveal the proceedings to the public. Arbitration sessions are not open, and the arbitrator’s decisions are not released to anyone except the parties.
  • Structure. The parties generally agree to arbitration and are free to further agree to specialized rules and to choose arbitrators with experiences, skills, and expertise suitable for the matter.
  • Procedures. Unlike the one-size-fits-all procedural rules in court litigation that are applicable to all cases, in arbitration the parties will choose actions that best serve their interests, including the applicable law, rules and procedures, and the place and language of the proceedings.
  • Specialized expertise. The parties may select a panel of arbitrators who possess a particular expertise suitable to resolve the complicated and technical nature of disputes involving IP. In complex technology disputes, for example, the selected arbitrators could have deeper understanding about the technology involved than a judge without a scientific or technical background.
  • Efficiency. As a result of the parties’ autonomy, arbitration typically provides a faster and more efficient decision-making process than court litigation. In many cases, arbitration has proven to be cheaper than court litigation.
  • Relationships. Arbitration proceedings are conducted in a friendlier manner than typical litigation, usually in private setting. Rules of evidence and procedure as selected by the parties from the arbitration rules are generally relaxed, which makes the process more business-like and less hostile than court litigation. The ADR process allows the conflicting parties to restore their working business relationship.
  • Enforceability. The enforceability of arbitration awards is recognized by national statutes. Treaties like the United Nations Convention for the Recognition and Enforcement of Foreign Arbitral Awards of 1958 (the New York Convention) provides for the common recognition of arbitral awards. Since grounds for appeal are very limited in contrast to court litigation, arbitration decisions are often viewed as easier to enforce than judicial decisions.

Unless the parties to the disputes aim to establish a public legal precedent rather than an award, arbitration and other forms of ADR can provide an effective means to deal with possible future conflicts. Practitioners, judges, legislators, and academics should pay more attention to the potential value of arbitration and should present arbitration to the parties as an alternative means to the court litigation for resolving IP disputes.

Download Full Article
Related Professionals

Practices

Dispute Resolution and Litigation

Intellectual Property

Location

RELATED INSIGHTS​ 

September 23, 2026
Arbitration under Thai law rests on consent. Section 11 of the Arbitration Act B.E. 2545 (2002) requires an arbitration agreement to be in writing and signed by the parties. This may also be satisfied by communications, an unchallenged allegation in pleadings, or incorporation by reference to a document containing an arbitration clause. A non-signatory cannot, as a general rule, be compelled to arbitrate merely because it participated in the transaction, received a benefit, or belongs to the corporate group of a signatory. Thai law nevertheless permits arbitration agreements and awards to affect third parties indirectly in limited circumstances. Under section 24, an arbitration clause is separable from the main contract; the invalidity of the contract does not invalidate the clause. In Supreme Court Judgment No. 3918/2563, an apparent sales contract concealed a construction contract and was void under the Civil and Commercial Code. However, the concealed construction contract and written arbitration clause remained effective. The tribunal had jurisdiction, and its award was enforceable under the Arbitration Act. Under the Arbitration Act, when a claim or liability is validly transferred, the transferee is bound by the related arbitration agreement. This includes assignment, transfer of obligations, legal succession, and subrogation. Depending on the facts and contract and agency law, consent may arise through execution by an authorized agent, ratification, assumption of obligations, or conduct accepting the contract and its arbitration clause. Thai law respects separate corporate personality. The group-of-companies doctrine has no statutory basis under the Arbitration Act, while alter egos or sham allegations require compelling evidence and an identifiable legal basis. Supreme Court Judgment No. 9161/2568 illustrates the procedural treatment of non-signatories. A consultancy contract required LCIA arbitration seated in Dubai. When the employer sued a consultant and his spouse in Thailand concerning a housing loan, the court disposed of
Read More
September 21, 2026
Thailand’s first-to-file trademark system has a serious vulnerability: it lacks both an explicit mechanism for refusing bad-faith registrations and any means of invalidating them in court after the five-year limitation period has expired. While brand owners worldwide confront trademark squatting, Thailand’s statutory silence stands out, particularly in light of AIPPI’s 2017 Resolution Q249, which recommended that every jurisdiction provide clear tools to address bad faith at all stages of the trademark lifecycle. Nearly a decade later, Thailand has yet to act. This article proposes a concrete reform blueprint, drawing on the legislative models of China, the United Kingdom, and the European Union. The Statutory Gap Under the Thai Trademark Act B.E. 2534, no provision expressly authorizes examiners to reject an application on grounds of bad faith. Section 8(10) addresses well-known marks but offers no relief where the targeted mark lacks well-known status. Practitioners have resorted to Section 8(9)—which bars marks “contrary to public order, morality, or public policy”—as a workaround. However, this provision was designed to address the characteristics of the mark itself, not the applicant’s intent. Thai Supreme Court decisions have split on whether it can reach bad-faith conduct, creating persistent legal uncertainty. The gap extends beyond examination. Civil actions to cancel a bad-faith registration must be brought within five years—a deadline that frequently expires before foreign brand owners discover the squatted mark. Cancellation through the Board of Trademarks remains available but is slow, costly, and subject to court appeal, leaving bad-faith registrations in force during protracted proceedings. The system effectively rewards squatters and penalizes legitimate owners. Lessons from International Best Practices Several major jurisdictions have already closed this gap. China’s 2019 amendment to Article 4 of the Trademark Law introduced an absolute ground for refusal: “bad faith trademark applications without intent to use shall be rejected.” Bad
Read More
September 14, 2026
Myanmar’s first-to-file trademark registration regime under the Trademark Law 2019—which became fully operational in April 2023—provides mark owners with enhanced legal protection compared with the country’s former system. Correspondingly, the current system imposes more rigorous statutory requirements for obtaining, maintaining, and enforcing rights in marks. In this first-to-file trademark registration system, however, evidence of use remains particularly significant, as it may establish acquired distinctiveness, support a claim that a mark is well-known, and strengthen the owner’s position in both registration and enforcement proceedings. Accordingly, it can be said that this framework is underpinned by three key concepts: distinctiveness, well-known status, and, importantly, use of the trademark. Trademark Distinctiveness Under the Trademark Law, signs that lack distinctiveness are generally ineligible for mark protection. These signs include generic terms, basic shapes, unstylized single letters or numerals, and signs that merely describe the kind, quality, quantity, intended purpose, value, geographical origin, production time, or other characteristics of the relevant goods or services. However, a mark that would otherwise be refused on distinctiveness or descriptiveness grounds may be registrable if it has acquired distinctiveness through its use prior to the filing date. To show this, the applicant must demonstrate that the mark became distinctive to relevant consumers through continuous, exclusive, and good-faith use in trade within Myanmar. The burden of proving acquired distinctiveness rests with the mark owner. Accordingly, sufficient evidence demonstrating both use of the mark and the level of consumer recognition attained should be prepared in advance. Well-Known Mark Criteria Myanmar’s Trademark Rules, which govern the substantive examination of mark registration applications, establish criteria for determining well-known marks, aligned with international standards. Where an applicant claims well-known status—whether to overcome a refusal on relative grounds or to oppose a third party’s registration—the registrar will assess the claim based on the following
Read More
September 14, 2026
On August 23, 2026, Vietnam’s National Assembly passed Law No. 11/2026/QH16, amending the country’s Customs Law with effect from March 1, 2027. The amendments represent a substantial reform of Vietnam’s customs-based intellectual property enforcement regime. The reforms come amid considerable external pressure. In its 2026 Special 301 review, the US Trade Representative (USTR) designated Vietnam a “priority foreign country,” citing widespread counterfeiting, weak border enforcement, limited ex officio customs powers, and the absence of controls over goods in transit. Vietnam’s legislative response signals a commitment to bringing its border enforcement practices into line with international expectations. For IP rights holders operating in or through Vietnam, the amended law introduces several tools that substantially strengthen enforcement options at the border. Closing the Transit Gap One of the most consequential amendments is the extension of IP-related customs enforcement to goods in transit. Previously, Vietnam’s customs regime applied IP controls only to goods being imported or exported, a gap the USTR had specifically identified as enabling infringing goods to pass through Vietnamese ports with impunity. Vietnam’s geographic position as a logistics hub for Southeast Asia means that substantial volumes of goods transit its ports and free-trade zones. Extending enforcement to cover these shipments brings Vietnam closer to the standard set by the EU’s customs enforcement regulation and addresses a longstanding concern of multinational brand owners whose goods are frequently counterfeited in the region. Strengthened Suspension and Ex Officio Powers The amended law introduces a dual-track suspension mechanism (Article 73(2)). Customs authorities will suspend clearance upon request by an IP rights holder (or authorized representative) who provides evidence of IP ownership, evidence of infringement, and a financial guarantee. Customs can now proactively suspend clearance on an ex officio basis if, during inspection and monitoring, they discover “clear grounds” to suspect that imported, exported,
Read More