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

June 10, 2019

Taking Care of Intellectual Property Generated by Employees

Bangkok Post: Human Resources Watch

Intellectual property (IP), such as trademarks, copyrighted works, designs, inventions and trade secrets, is a valuable asset for many companies. It brings with it market advantages and distinguishes one company’s business from another’s. Hence, it is important for company management to recognize and manage their IP portfolios properly.

As a company’s IP is generally created or invented by its employees, prudent employers should arrange for the necessary agreements to ensure that any such IP belongs to them. Overlooking this can lead to significant problems. For example, companies may not be able to enforce their IP rights against a third party, or may even have a problem with an employee who created or invented the IP while working there—particularly if the employee left on bad terms. 

In Thailand, ownership of IP created or invented by employees is addressed differently from one piece of IP legislation to the next. Managers need to understand these differences to see that the agreement properly addresses all related issues and complies with all relevant laws.

Ownership of copyrighted works

For copyrighted work, such as drawings, photographs or computer software, the Copyright Act assigns ownership of copyright to the employee who creates the work, unless the employer and employee have agreed otherwise in writing. If the copyright belongs to the employee, the employer will be allowed only to disseminate such work as intended under the employment agreement. If, on the other hand, a company hires a third party to create a copyrighted work, the copyright for that work belongs to the employer, again unless the parties have agreed otherwise.

Ownership of trade secrets

With regard to trade secrets, such as a company’s commercially valuable and secret know-how or product formulas, the Trade Secret Act prescribes that a person who discovers, invents, compiles or creates trade information that is eligible for protection as a trade secret is considered the owner of the secret. However, the creation of a trade secret in the context of an employment relationship is not specifically addressed. Therefore, unless both parties agree otherwise, it is arguable that the employee could be regarded as the owner.

Ownership of trademarks

Similarly, the creation of a trademark or brand name by an employee is not specifically addressed by the Trademark Act. Therefore, it could likewise be argued that the employee who create a trademark or brand name could be regarded as the owner if there is no agreement between the employer and the employee stating otherwise.

Ownership of patents

For inventions, such as a new type of computer or a new process of food preservation, and designs, such as the shape of a product, the Patent Act gives the employer the right to patent an invention or design developed by an employee within the scope of his employment, unless the employment agreement says otherwise. This rule applies even if the employment agreement does not cover issues of invention or design, provided that the employee created the invention or design using means or information that was made available through his or her employment. If a company hires someone to invent or design something, the right to apply for a patent is the company’s, unless the hiring agreement stipulates otherwise.

Even though an employee does not have the right to apply for a patent in these cases, he or she has the right to be named in the patent as the inventor or creator. The employee also has the right to special remuneration (in addition to normal earnings) if the employer benefits from the invention or design. This right to special remuneration cannot be removed by the employment agreement.

IP ownership agreement

To summarize, copyright, trade secrets and trademarks created by employees belong to the employees automatically if there is no written agreement providing otherwise. It is thus very important for managers to make sure there is an agreement between the company and each employee on ownership of IP created by the employees.

Some people rightly wonder whether IP ownership should be addressed in the employment agreement or in a separate agreement. The Patent Act specifically addresses this, stating that the right to apply for a patent for an employee’s invention belongs to employer unless it is stated otherwise in the “employment agreement.” However, other IP legislation on this issue refers only to an “agreement”—so other types of IP that are created by employees can be addressed in separate agreements. Nonetheless, employers may want to consider placing the IP ownership provisions for all types of IP created by employees in the employment agreement for uniformity.

Additionally, in the case of work for hire, the Trademark Act and the Trade Secret Act do not specifically prescribe that ownership of works created or invented by a third party belong automatically to the company. Therefore, it is recommended that similar IP ownership provisions be addressed clearly in the hiring contracts.

Growing and protecting IP

Even though the Patent Act is the only IP legislation that bestows special remuneration on the employees behind a design or invention, companies are free to offer similar remuneration to employees who create copyrighted works, trademarks and trade secrets. This would certainly help encourage employees to come up with designs, inventions and other IP, which would in turn benefit the company in the long run. Company management should also see to it that employees are well informed of their rights and obligations concerning the work they create or invent during the course of employment.

For companies that have never had IP ownership agreements with employees, the time to tackle these issues is now. Besides assigning ownership of IP created from now on, agreements made after employees have already started working should also cover ownership of all copyrights, trade secrets and trademarks they have already created. This assignment of ownership must be signed by both parties.

Companies making new hires should review their employment agreements to confirm that they cover everything needed to protect their interests long-term. With a bit of careful management and foresight, employers can secure their valuable IP while being clear and fair with their employees.

 

This story was originally published in the Bangkok Post and is reproduced here with permission and thanks. The original story can be viewed here on the Bangkok Post website.

RELATED INSIGHTS​ 

July 16, 2026
Thailand’s Office of the Personal Data Protection Committee (PDPC) published a series of draft guidance documents for public consultation on July 7, 2026. Issued under the Personal Data Protection Act B.E. 2562 (2019) (PDPA), the drafts address a range of compliance issues and offer insight into the regulator’s current enforcement priorities. This article examines two of those drafts: one on lawful bases for processing personal data, and another on marketing and direct marketing. Together, they reflect the Office of the PDPC’s evolving expectations on lawful-basis selection, accountability, and the use of personal data in marketing. Organizations operating in Thailand should assess the practical implications now, before the guidance is finalized. Lawful Bases: A Structured Selection Process The draft guidance on lawful bases introduces a systematic five-step process for selecting an appropriate lawful basis for each processing activity. Organizations are expected to: Identify the processing activity involved. Assess the appropriate lawful basis. Evaluate whether the data is necessary for the processing. Conduct a legitimate interest assessment (LIA) where applicable. Ensure transparency through privacy notices. The guidance provides practical explanations and examples for each lawful basis under section 24 of the PDPA—including archiving, research, statistics, vital interests, contractual necessity, legal obligation, public task, legitimate interests, and consent—as well as the bases applicable to sensitive personal data under section 26. The aim is to promote more consistent and accurate lawful-basis selection across public- and private-sector organizations. A recurring theme throughout the guidance is that organizations should select the lawful basis that most accurately reflects the actual purpose and circumstances of the processing activity. The guidance cautions against treating consent as a default or catch-all basis where another lawful basis is more appropriate. For processing based on legitimate interests, organizations should conduct and document an LIA. Processing involving sensitive personal data may require
July 15, 2026
On July 8, 2026, Thailand enacted a new law significantly expanding the framework for government service delivery and licensing facilitation. The Facilitation of Licensing and Public Services Consideration Act B.E. 2569 (2026) (Facilitation Act 2026) replaces and expands the framework of governmental services under the Facilitation of Official Licensing Consideration Act B.E. 2558 (2015) (Facilitation Act 2015) and broadens its scope to cover public services, administrative processes, and public benefits. The Facilitation Act 2026 aims to modernize government services by promoting e-filing, reducing administrative burdens and repeated document requests, and improving predictability. For businesses, this should ease compliance and shorten approval timelines, subject to implementing regulations and agency readiness. Public Services Facilitation Scope The Facilitation Act 2015 applied mainly to permissions, registrations, and notifications required before conducting activities that require licenses, certificates, permits, approvals, or registrations. The Facilitation Act 2026 broadens this framework to include public services and other benefits, such as welfare, subsidies, and grants, provided to Thai citizens, expanding government agencies’ responsibilities beyond licensing facilitation into a wider administrative-service framework. It also introduces a broader definition of “government agency” to include central, regional, and local government bodies, state enterprises, public organizations, and other state entities. Licensing Changes The Facilitation Act 2026 introduces a “super license” (termed a “main license” under the act) that exempts the holder from obtaining multiple related or ancillary licenses issued by different government agencies. Obtaining a super license deems the licensee to have automatically obtained the related “sublicenses” required to conduct the relevant activities. The cabinet will designate eligible activities by royal decree. The act also introduces an expedited licensing option, allowing applicants to pay an additional fee to fast-track their applications in urgent cases. Expedited processing must not interfere with standard application timelines. The criteria, procedures, conditions, and fees for expedited licensing
July 15, 2026
Ambush marketing refers to a strategy in which a business associates itself with an event, campaign, or brand without paying for official sponsorship rights. The tactic is most visible in sports, concerts, and festivals, where official sponsors have invested substantially for exclusivity. Ambush marketers may use suggestive wording, event-themed imagery, athlete endorsements, venue-adjacent promotions, or social media campaigns implying a commercial connection with the event. Common Forms of Ambush Marketing Ambush marketing typically takes one of the following forms: Direct ambushing: using event names, logos, or mascots suggesting authorization Coattail ambushing: sponsoring an athlete or broadcaster connected with the event Subtle ambushing: themed advertising, venue-adjacent campaigns, or similar visual cues The legal analysis in each case turns on whether the marketing crosses from permissible event-based advertising into infringement, passing off, deception, or wrongful exploitation of goodwill, and the risk assessment is necessarily fact-specific. Thailand has no dedicated ambush marketing statute, so legality depends on execution. A campaign that merely comments on a public event may be permissible, but one that uses protected marks, creates consumer confusion, misrepresents sponsorship status, or makes unsubstantiated claims may trigger liability under various Thai laws, as laid out below. Ambush Marketing and Thailand’s Trademark Act The Trademark Act B.E. 2534 (1991) is the primary tool for addressing campaigns that use registered trademarks, event names, logos, mascots, or confusingly similar signs. The law gives registered trademark owners the exclusive right to use their mark for registered goods, and infringement risk arises when a nonsponsor uses an event mark or a confusingly similar sign in advertising. Even referential or playful use may create liability if it causes public confusion as to sponsorship or commercial connection. The law also preserves passing-off claims for unregistered marks. This matters because event names, taglines, or mascots may not always be
July 14, 2026
Tilleke & Gibbins has contributed the Thailand and Vietnam chapters to Investigations in Southeast Asia, a comprehensive guide published by Drew Network Asia (DNA). The resource provides a practical overview of anticorruption laws, corporate investigations, and compliance frameworks across six key Southeast Asian jurisdictions. Designed for in-house counsel, compliance officers, and risk management professionals, the guide offers actionable insights for navigating complex cross-border regulatory challenges and establishing effective, regionally coordinated compliance and investigation strategies. The guide begins with a regional perspective on enforcement trends and cross-border cooperation initiatives. Jurisdiction-specific chapters follow a standardized structure—covering primary corruption offenses, enforcement authorities, corporate liability, investigation procedures and dawn raids, whistleblower protections, and recommended compliance measures. In addition to country-by-country analysis, the publication highlights best practices for conducting internal investigations, managing digital evidence, and handling parallel proceedings involving multiple regional or international regulators. The guide serves as a practical reference for organizations operating in Southeast Asia. Because legal and regulatory risks depend on specific industry sectors and operational contexts, readers seeking tailored advice are encouraged to contact the authors listed in each chapter. The full guide is available for download through the button below or directly from the DNA website.