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​ 

July 25, 2025
Over the first half of 2025, the government of Vietnam has implemented a comprehensive suite of legislative reforms that significantly impact the country’s intellectual property (IP) framework. These amendments, most of which took effect on 1 July 2025, span the criminal, civil, administrative, and judicial sectors, and are part of a broader initiative to modernize Vietnam’s legal infrastructure, strengthen enforcement mechanisms, and harmonize domestic regulations with international standards. A summary of the key legislative changes and their potential implications for IP protection and enforcement across Vietnam is provided below. Criminal Code: Stricter penalties Under the 2025 amendments to Vietnam’s Criminal Code, penalties for offenses involving the manufacturing and trading of counterfeit goods have been significantly escalated. Individuals convicted of such violations now face fines ranging from VND 200 million to VND 2 billion (approximately USD 7,700 to USD 77,000; up from VND 100 million to VND 1 billion). For corporate entities, the penalties are even more severe, with fines ranging from VND 2 billion to VND 40 billion (roughly USD 77,000 to USD 1.54 million; up from VND 1 billion to VND 20 billion). These heightened penalties reflect the government’s intensified efforts to deter counterfeit-related crimes and protect consumer rights. Law on Handling Administrative Violations: Extended statute of limitations and application of electronic procedure The statute of limitations for addressing administrative violations in the IP sector is still two years. However, in cases where such violations are referred by procedural authorities, this period is extended by one year. The time taken by these authorities to process the case is now included within the overall limitation period. In addition, the Law on Handling Administrative Violations facilitates the use of electronic procedures, provided that the necessary infrastructure, technical systems, and information conditions are in place. Specifically, enforcement authorities are now permitted
Read More
July 21, 2025
Distinctiveness is a fundamental requirement for a trademark’s registration and protection under Thai law. The Thai courts typically assess distinctiveness based on a mark’s inherent characteristics rather than its use, as proving acquired distinctiveness through use requires substantial evidence, including the duration of use, extent of distribution and promotional efforts. However, the Intellectual Property and International Trade Court (IP & IT Court) has recently ruled that the figurative mark WEPLAY had acquired distinctiveness through use – an uncommon ruling under Thai trademark law. Subsequently, the Court of Appeal for Specialised Cases affirmed the mark’s inherent distinctiveness based on a holistic assessment of its components. This article discusses the criteria for proving both inherent and acquired distinctiveness, offering examples from both courts to provide valuable insights into case preparation and understanding of how the courts assess distinctiveness. Background In 2017 the plaintiff filed a trademark application for the mark depicted below for goods in Class 28, including toy building blocks: The registrar rejected the application on the grounds of non-distinctiveness under Section 7 of the Trademark Act. The plaintiff appealed to the Board of Trademarks, which considered that, when the term ‘weplay’ is used for goods in Class 28, it is descriptive of the nature of the goods applied for as “playthings”. Therefore, ‘weplay’ was deemed nondistinctive under Section 7, Paragraph 2(2) of the Trademark Act. IP & IT Court decision In 2024 the IP & IT Court ruled that the term ‘weplay’ is not a coined or invented word; instead, it is a combination of ‘we’ and ‘play’, conveying the meaning of ‘we play’. When the term is used for goods in Class 28, it describes the nature of the goods as “playthings”. Consequently, the mark was deemed non-distinctive. However, the court considered the evidence presented by the plaintiff,
Read More
July 14, 2025
Life sciences specialists from Tilleke & Gibbins have updated the firm’s guide to pharmaceutical data exclusivity regulations and practices in Southeast Asia. This guide contains quick-reference information on the availability of data exclusivity protections and limitations in Cambodia, Indonesia, Laos, Malaysia, Myanmar, Thailand, and Vietnam. Developing and launching a new drug on a commercial scale requires an enormous amount of time and investment in research and development (R&D), including pre-clinical testing and clinical trials. When considering the aggregate amount of drug development costs, it is important to recognize that this includes not only the investment in developing new drugs that get approved by a government food and drug regulator and are successfully brought to market, but also the R&D expenditures on a large number of potential pharmaceutical compounds and products that never actually make it to market. In particular, considerable investment is required in order to conduct and produce clinical trial data—to prove safety, efficacy and effectiveness of a new drug—that would warrant marketing approval by the regulatory authority. Such data is proprietary in nature and highly valuable for a research-based pharmaceutical company that develops an original drug. On the other hand, patent law typically confers generic drug manufacturers with the ability to engage in various preparatory activities with a view to obtaining marketing approval for a generic product before the patent for the original drug expires (commonly known as a “Bolar provision”). Since a generic drug maker may submit an application for marketing approval of a generic product before the relevant patent expires, the extent to which the drug originator’s data submitted to the regulatory authority is protected—or in other words, the extent to which the generic company may rely on the drug originator’s previously filed data, which underpins the safety and efficacy of the drug, to support
Read More
June 30, 2025
Vietnam is making notable strides in decentralization, aiming to grant greater autonomy to local government entities to streamline administrative procedures. As part of this effort, the government issued Decree No. 133/2025/ND-CP on decentralization of state management of the Ministry of Science and Technology dated June 12, 2025 (Decree 133). Effective from July 1, 2025, Decree 133 decentralizes and delegates numerous state management functions—including in intellectual property (IP) and technology transfer—to provincial-level People’s Committees (PCs). This reform signals a profound shift in how IP rights are administered and enforced across Vietnam. While this offers new opportunities for IP owners, agents, and innovators, it also introduces additional operational complexities. Impact on IP and Technology Transfer Decree 133 significantly reallocates responsibilities in IP and technology transfer, primarily to provincial-level PCs. Provincial PCs and other provincial authorities are now empowered to handle a wide range of tasks, including but not limited to the following: Issuance of duplicates and reissuance of certificates of registration. Registration of license agreements for the transfer of usage rights for industrial property objects (e.g., trademarks, patents) and recording amendments, extensions, or early terminations of such agreements. Enforcing decisions on compulsory licensing of patent use rights. Evaluation and approval of technology transfer contracts—a key step in facilitating localized technological advancements. Permitting the establishment of foreign-invested scientific organizations and their branches, to encourage foreign direct investment in local R&D and technology development. Approval of provincial-level R&D tasks, aligning with local socio-economic development priorities. Legal Implications The decentralization and delegation brought forth by Decree 133 carry several significant legal implications: Echoing Decree 133, the Intellectual Property Office of Vietnam issued Notification No. 2351/TB-SHTT on June 26, 2025, announcing the cessation of 19 administrative procedures at the national level. Specifically, from July 1, 2025, the IP Office will no longer accept requests related
Read More