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

September 15, 2020

Thailand: Risk of Trade Secret Misappropriation While Working from Home Continues

Managing Intellectual Property

With many employees in Thailand working outside their company’s normal IT security fence, their increased use of their own computers and devices instead of those in their offices with standard or enhanced security mechanisms has made it more challenging for employers to control access to key business information. In the rush to set up a fully or partially remote workforce, most companies have had little time to establish work-from-home guidelines on protection of their valuable intangible assets like trade secrets and confidential business information. The need for sufficient internal guidelines on copying files to USB drives, emailing files to personal accounts, and uploading to cloud storage is already widely recognized, but who could have imagined the need for rules precluding sharing proprietary information over Zoom, Skype, Webex, and such programs?

In addition to misappropriation by employees, many organizations have also seen hackers exploit vulnerable IT protocols and bait people with emails related to the current health crisis. Phishing and ransomware emails have been used to lure people working from home in attempts to access protected systems. Hacking of smart home devices has resulted in recordings of confidential conversations being transmitted to not only Amazon, Google, and other providers but to hackers and thieves as well.

HR Tasks

A top concern for companies in Thailand should be revisiting rules for handling and maintaining confidential business information. This should include a refresher in employment agreements or individual confidentiality agreements (particularly for key personnel) to accommodate work-from-home realities. To prove a case against a trade secret infringer, the owner must show that care was taken to maintain the confidential information. This would include regular reminders to employees defining “confidential information,” “trade secrets,” and their duty to maintain confidentiality. Many will already be familiar with a company’s rules on information disclosure, but this is complicated by new patterns of external communication, often involving online collaboration and meeting tools. For document sharing, companies might employ secure transfer solutions like password-protected FTP programs, time-limited document viewers, and limitation of the number of downloads.

For businesses forced to lay off or furlough employees, work-from-home realities make the exit interview even more important. In addition to existing requirements such as return of company property, companies should secure additional undertakings, such as assurances that no unauthorized copying or downloading occurred, no company information is retained, and no confidential information was shared without authorization. If the departing employee was on an R&D, design, or engineering team, an enhanced exit interview is an ideal time to effect IP assignments or other necessary declarations. Even if the research project is incomplete, companies might consider filing provisional patent applications with the employee’s written assurance that follow-on applications will not be jeopardized.

IT Tasks

The IT team can complement these HR efforts by updating existing security measures, implementing new ones, and explaining changes to employees. This might include a new personal device use policy with an explanation of the employer’s right to track and monitor its own devices as well as those of the employee who uses them for their work—all legal in Thailand, as it is in most jurisdictions so long as employees are made aware. Personal devices will be at greater risk of hacking than fenced-in company IT architecture, so the IT team should also install necessary security on personal devices used for company work. If employees are allowed VPNs or other remote access, employers should decide about potential restrictions on downloading, copying, or transferring files.

While no business in Thailand can completely insulate itself from leakage of proprietary information, most can take steps to significantly reduce the risk, mitigate damages, and prove that reasonable care was taken to protect their property.

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
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
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
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,