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​ 

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
Read More
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
Read More
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
Read More
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,
Read More