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 3, 2025

The Intellectual Property Implications of Thailand’s Entertainment Complex Bill

Subscribe to Updates

Thailand’s aim of hosting entertainment complexes that include casinos is moving forward with the cabinet’s approval in principle of the draft Entertainment Complex Business Act on January 13, 2025.

In fact, Thailand has studied the pros and cons of allowing the operation of entertainment complexes since March 2019. Though the initial surge of global interest died down during the COVID-19 pandemic, the country renewed its efforts with the recent draft law. This is part of the government’s aim of bringing parts of the informal economy (or shadow economy) and the underground economy—estimated to be more than 50% of Thailand’s GDP—into the revenue system.

While many authors have provided analyses of the bill’s contents, this article explores how the enforcement of the Entertainment Complex Bill after its passage would relate to various aspects of intellectual property (IP) in the casino business in the context of Thai law. Below are some examples of the potential effects of the draft legislation on IP rights in Thailand.

Public Order and Public Policy

Under Thai law, contradiction of public order, good morality, or public policy is grounds for denying IP protection. With the eventual passage and enforcement of the Entertainment Complex Bill, IP rights related to gaming that used to be regarded as contrary to the public order and received no protection under the current law would become eligible for legal protection and considered registrable under the law. This is similar to what happened recently with cannabis in Thailand. Legalization of cannabis opened up pathways for trademark and patent protection in this industry.

IP in the casino industry encompasses a wide range of assets, including patents, trademarks, copyrights, and trade secrets. These IP rights protect the unique features of casino games, gaming machines, software, and branding elements. For instance, in Thailand patents can cover technical solutions when connected to innovative hardware, while trademarks protect the names and logos of casinos, resorts, games, and retail offerings in these locations. If the change in Thai law makes possible the registration of this IP, it would benefit not only the entertainment complex or casino operator but also inventors, artists, and the general public by allowing them to receive IP protection for their creations or inventions related to casinos and gambling.

IP Licensing and Technology Transfer

The casino industry is a dynamic and rapidly evolving sector that relies heavily on IP to protect its innovations and maintain a competitive edge. As casinos expand their digital presence and introduce new gaming technologies, finance and accounting solutions, and loyalty programs, the importance of IP licensing becomes increasingly significant. IP licensing allows casino and integrated resort operators to use and commercialize third-party IP. This is particularly crucial in the casino industry, where the process of adopting new games and technologies often involves collaboration with third-party developers and manufacturers. Licensing agreements ensure that all parties involved can benefit from the use of IP while protecting the rights of the original creators.

Legalization of the gaming industry will foster technology transfer to Thailand, which could involve various IP rights. For example:

  • Patent licensing: Patents protect the technical aspects of gaming machines. For example, a patent for a new slot machine mechanism can be licensed to multiple casinos, generating revenue for the patent holder through royalties.
  • Trademark licensing: Licensing trademarks enables casinos to use well-known brands and logos, attracting customers and building trust. For instance, a local casino developer may license the trademark of a well-known casino brand or license a popular game to offer it exclusively at their venue.
  • Copyright licensing: Copyrights protect the software, artistic works, and musical elements of casino games. Licensing copyright allows casinos to legally use copyright content, such as game graphics, user interfaces, and soundtracks.
  • Trade secret/know-how licensing: Unregistered IP, such as trade secrets and know-how in the gaming industry, could include proprietary operations systems, ongoing technical services, and consultancy services provided by experienced operators.

Other areas of IP protection include design protection for the unique design of the machine or equipment and trade dress protection for the distinctive elements of gaming machines or casino decorations.

Thailand’s Entertainment Complex Bill stipulates that the gaming machines used in casinos must be up to the standard set by the Entertainment Complex Policy Board, in good shape, and able to operate without errors. The operator must also assist government officials in inspecting and testing the gaming machines in the casino. Any operator who fails to resolve an issue within the given time could face a penalty of up to THB 500,000 (approx. USD 14,380) per day until the issue is resolved.

Noting the necessity of complying with these potentially complex standards for gaming machines, it is therefore important to use machines with proven reliability. As the associated intellectual property rights have not been registrable in Thailand (as discussed above), technology transfer will be required for entertainment complex operators in Thailand, and the focal point for this technology transfer will be patents, copyright (computer programs), and trade secrets.

IP Clearance

Operators will also need to ensure they are not infringing on others’ IP rights. It is thus necessary to conduct IP clearance or freedom-to-operate searches before launching operations or using any content or technology, especially when it is not owned or invented by the entertainment complex operator.

Conducting an IP clearance search can prevent costly legal disputes and the potential need to rebrand or cease operations after the launch of the business. This proactive step saves time and resources and guards against the reputational damage that could arise from an infringement suit.

Data protection and compliance

The collection, use, and protection of players’ personal data is a growing concern within the gaming and integrated resort industries. Thailand’s Personal Data Protection Act of 2019 (PDPA) sets out a regulatory framework for this. Investigations into and enforcement of the PDPA are progressing in Thailand. Recently, a major company was fined THB 7 million for its noncompliance, highlighting the importance of adhering to PDPA requirements. Additionally, the regulator has introduced a new “compliance checklist” with ten key areas of focus, indicating a shift toward more stringent regulatory requirements and oversight.

The Entertainment Complex Bill would also regulate other aspects related to casinos, like advertising and promotion, casino licensing requirements, minimum investment requirements, taxation, allowed types of gaming machines, operating times, time and place restrictions on selling alcoholic beverages, and casino entry requirements. We have discussed some of these requirements in another article.

Outlook

The Entertainment Complex Bill is preparing to open up various types of business opportunities to investment from both domestic and international actors, whether directly as an entertainment complex operator or as a licensor of IP or transferor for technology. Emerging technologies, such as virtual reality and blockchain, are set to revolutionize the gaming experience, creating new opportunities for IP licensing.

Gaming operators and integrated resorts that effectively manage their IP assets and establish strong licensing agreements will be well-positioned to thrive in this competitive market. For companies considering an entry into the prospective Thai market for entertainment complexes, preparing now for future IP filings will provide a strong foundation that will facilitate efficient operations, assuming the Entertainment Complex Bill is passed in a form similar to the existing draft.

Related Professionals

Practices

Intellectual Property

Location

RELATED INSIGHTS​ 

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
September 7, 2026
Indonesia’s Constitutional Court (Mahkamah Konstitusi) has reinstated a key provision limiting pharmaceutical patent protection, signaling a renewed commitment to balancing patent rights with public access to medicines. In its ruling to Case No. 255/PUU-XXIII/2025, the court partially granted a petition for judicial review of Law No. 65 of 2024, which had amended the country’s Patent Law, and ordered the restoration of a provision that had excluded certain pharmaceutical inventions from patentability. The decision took effect immediately upon its pronouncement at the court’s plenary session on August 28, 2026. Background The petition challenged the removal of article 4(f) from Law No. 13 of 2016 concerning Patents (Patent Law), as amended by Law No. 65 of 2024. Article 4(f) had excluded from patentability certain inventions relating to new uses of known substances. The petitioners argued that removing this provision would open the door to patent protection for second medical use inventions and facilitate patent evergreening—practices that can extend exclusivity periods, delay generic market entry, and reduce public access to affordable medicines. The petitioners included several patient advocacy and public-interest organizations: the Indonesian Dialysis Patients Community Association, the Indonesian Association of Drug Abuse Victims (PKNI), the Indonesian Pulmonary Hypertension Foundation (YHPI), the Rekat Peduli Indonesia Foundation, and the Indonesian Positive Women’s Association (IPPI), along with the Indonesia for Global Justice Association and four individual petitioners. The petitioners also challenged the constitutionality of the phrase “interested party” in article 70(1) of the Patent Law, arguing that it should be construed expressly to clarify who has standing to appeal a decision to grant a patent before the Board of Patent Appeal, and to allow a broader range of parties—such as patent holders, licensees, consumer organizations, prosecutors, aggrieved third parties, and others who may suffer direct or indirect harm from the grant of a patent—to
Read More