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​ 

August 21, 2025
Although the “passing off” principle has sometimes faced criticism for potentially broadening trademark protection—particularly in cases involving unregistered or unconventional marks like shapes, scents, or sounds—it serves an essential purpose. It safeguards the rights of business owners and shields consumers from deception, ensuring fair competition and reflecting the realities of modern commerce. What is passing off, and why is registrability not required? The passing-off principle is a legal concept rooted in English law, aimed at preventing a person from falsely representing or using a mark similar to another’s in a way that causes consumers to mistakenly believe the goods or services come from the same source. Under Thai law, the passing-off principle is provided under Section 46 of the Thai Trademark Act, which states: No person shall be entitled to bring legal proceedings to prevent or to recover damages for the infringement of an unregistered trademark. The provisions of this Section shall not affect the right of the owner of an unregistered trademark to bring legal proceedings against any person for passing off goods as those of the owner of the trademark. The passing-off principle can be interpreted as a practical legal concept. It does not require proof that the mark is registrable or meets the registrability criteria under trademark law. It is sufficient to show that the mark has established goodwill and that the other party’s use of a similar mark is likely to confuse consumers, making it a straightforward and effective tool for protecting brand assets. Requiring a claimant to prove that an unregistered mark could have been registered would undermine the very function of passing off. The doctrine was conceived precisely to fill the gaps left by the registration system. Imposing registrability criteria would nullify its function and leave many commercially valuable identifiers unprotected. If the
Read More
August 15, 2025
Indonesia’s Directorate General of Intellectual Property (DGIP) has introduced a temporary feature in its online filing system to accommodate the submission of annual patent working statements. The requirement to submit these annual working statements was introduced under the amended Patent Law enacted on October 28, 2024, but the implementing regulation has still not been issued. Annual Working Statements Article 20A of the amended Patent Law requires all patentees to submit an annual statement regarding the implementation of their patents in Indonesia. This obligation applies to all active patents, regardless of when they were granted. The annual working statement declares the status of implementation of the patented invention within Indonesia. Acceptable forms of implementation include: Manufacturing the patented product (whether commercialized or not) Utilizing the patented process (whether commercialized or not) Importation Licensing If the patent has not yet been implemented in Indonesia, the DGIP provides an option to indicate: “The mentioned registered patent has not been implemented in Indonesia.” The statement must be made using the official template provided by the DGIP through the online filing system. Submission The working statement must be submitted annually no later than December 31 of each calendar year. No supporting documents are needed for the submission apart from the signed form itself. A color scanned copy will suffice; the original document is not required. There is currently no official fee for submitting the working statement. While the submission process may eventually align with annuity fee payments, the current process remains separate due to the pending implementing regulation. The submission process may be subject to change upon issuance of the implementing regulation, which is under discussion and expected in the coming months. In the interim, the DGIP accepts submissions of overdue working statements, allowing patentees to fulfill their obligations retroactively. This flexibility is expected
Read More
July 31, 2025
The Madrid System for international trademark registration provides the opportunity for a simplified and cost-effective way to register trademarks in multiple countries through a single application. Indonesia joined the Madrid System in 2018, and in 2024 alone, it received over 8,600 applications through this system. Despite the system’s effectiveness, it is important for trademark owners to be aware of the potential risks of refusal that can arise during the process of registration. Trademark applicants must pay close attention to these critical points when designating Indonesia. Appointing a Local Representative to Respond An applicant or representative of an international registration (IR) application that has been provisionally refused must appoint a local Indonesian representative in order to submit a response to the provisional refusal. This appointment is solely for the purpose of responding to the refusal in Indonesia; it is not necessary if the IR has not received any rejection. Furthermore, the local representative should not be registered with WIPO, as doing so would affect representation across all designated countries. Timing When it comes to calculating the deadline for responding to a provisional refusal, there is a discrepancy between the methods used by the DGIP and WIPO. Under the Indonesian Trademark Law, trademark owners can file a response within 30 working days, excluding weekends and national holidays. However, the WIPO cover letter accompanying the DGIP’s provisional refusal notice specifies both the start date and the deadline for responding to the notification, which is calculated as 30 calendar days, including weekends and national holidays. Therefore, a response to the provisional refusal of IR should be submitted in accordance with the WIPO cover letter to prevent any formality issue. Grounds for Refusal After an IR application is published in Indonesia’s Trademark Gazette, it undergoes substantive examination by the Directorate General of Intellectual Property (DGIP) examiners. The
Read More
July 30, 2025
Artificial intelligence (AI) model training and data scraping are essential processes in the development of modern AI systems. AI model training involves using large datasets to teach machine learning algorithms to recognize patterns, make predictions, or generate new content. Data scraping refers to the automated extraction of information from websites or digital sources, often to assemble the vast datasets required for effective AI training. As these practices become more widespread, questions about the legality of using third-party content—especially copyrighted works—have become increasingly important. In Thailand, the legal landscape for AI developers is shaped primarily by the Copyright Act, which presents unique challenges due to the absence of a fair-use exception. This article examines the copyright-related risks and legal uncertainties facing AI developers under Thailand’s current copyright law and practices, offering strategic guidance for navigating this complex environment. Copyright Risks in AI Scraping and Training Thailand’s Copyright Act does not provide a broad fair use or fair dealing exception, unlike some other jurisdictions, such as the United States. This absence has significant consequences for AI developers: No general defense for AI training: Any use of copyrighted material for AI model training is presumed to be infringing unless a specific, narrow statutory exception applies or explicit permission is obtained from the rights holder. There is no general legal basis for using copyrighted works in AI training without authorization. Increased rights clearance burden: Developers must identify and secure licenses for every copyrighted work included in their training datasets. Given the scale and diversity of data required for effective AI models, this process can be both impractical and costly. Legal ambiguity and litigation risk: The lack of clear statutory guidance or case law leaves developers in a legal gray area. There is no established precedent clarifying whether certain uses of copyrighted material for
Read More