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 10, 2026
For multinational franchisors operating in Thailand, a key risk after franchise termination is that former outlets may continue operating in ways that could easily mislead consumers into believing they remain within the authorized network. To justify such operations, former franchisees often argue that the termination was invalid or ineffective. As a result, these cases are often treated as contractual disputes, making it difficult for franchisors to obtain injunctive relief before a final judgment confirms that the termination was lawful. Franchisors face significant commercial and reputational harm during lengthy proceedings, including consumer confusion, disruption to franchise restructuring, and damage to brand reputation and customer trust. In an encouraging development, the Thai court in a 2025 case responded to the problem of unauthorized post-termination franchise operations by granting interim relief, recognizing broader brand and consumer harm, and awarding substantial damages, highlighting a successful litigation strategy of framing the dispute not merely as a contractual termination issue but as trademark infringement causing ongoing commercial injury. The Subway Case From December 2024 to mid-2025, an unauthorized “Subway®” franchise operation in Thailand attracted substantial public and media attention. Reports and online discussions about unauthorized Subway® stores circulated widely after complaints arose about food quality and customer experience at certain outlets that were allegedly operating after their franchise rights had expired. Because these stores continued to use Subway® trademarks, trade dress, and overall commercial appearance, many consumers were unable to distinguish them from authorized operations, resulting in reputational risks and customer confusion that affected the franchisor’s brand and franchise system in Thailand. Subway treated this matter with the utmost seriousness and moved promptly to protect its brand, franchise system, and customers. It filed a civil action with the IP&IT Court seeking a permanent injunction and damages. During the proceedings, the court granted a preliminary injunction
Read More
May 22, 2026
Intellectual property specialists from Tilleke & Gibbins in Vietnam have contributed an updated Intellectual Property Transactions in Vietnam overview for Thomson Reuters Practical Law, an online publication that provides comprehensive legal guides for jurisdictions worldwide. The Vietnam overview was authored by Linh Thi Mai Nguyen, Thanh Phuong Vu, Chi Lan Dang, Son Thai Hoang, and Duc Anh Tran. The chapter provides a high-level examination of key aspects of IP transactions law in Vietnam, including IP assignment and licensing, research and development collaborations, IP in mergers and acquisitions (M&A), lending and taking security over intellectual property rights, settlement agreements, employee- and consultant-created IP, competition law, taxation, and non-tariff trade barriers. Key topics covered in the chapter include: IP assignment: Basis and formalities for assignments of patents, utility models, trade marks, copyright, design rights, trade secrets, confidential information, and domain names in Vietnam. IP licensing: Scope, formalities, and recordal requirements for licensing patents, trade marks, copyright, design rights, and trade secrets. Research and development collaborations: Treatment of improvements, derivatives, and joint ownership of IP, including exploitation and enforcement issues. IP aspects of M&A and security: Due diligence, warranties, transfer formalities, and taking security over intellectual property rights. Practical Law, a legal reference resource from Thomson Reuters, publishes a range of guides for hundreds of jurisdictions and practice areas. The Intellectual Property Transactions Global Guide is a valuable resource for legal practitioners seeking comparative insight into transactional IP issues across multiple jurisdictions. To view the latest version of the Intellectual Property Transactions in Vietnam overview, please visit the Practical Law website and enroll in the free Practical Law trial to gain full access.
Read More
May 13, 2026
Laos has significantly broadened its industrial property administrative review framework, most notably by extending it to cover copyright and related rights for the first time. Decision No. 0306/IC on the Administrative Resolution of Disputes Concerning Industrial Property Registration, New Plant Variety Registration, and Copyright and Related Rights Recordation took effect on April 24, 2026, replacing the previous rules from 2023, which had covered only industrial property and new plant variety matters. Decision No. 0306/IC governs how Laos’ Department of Intellectual Property (DIP) and provincial offices handle formal challenges to industrial property registrations and applications. The proceedings covered include oppositions to pending applications, appeals of refused applications, requests for cancellation of existing registrations, and—newly—disputes concerning the recordation and interpretation of copyright and related rights. These administrative proceedings within the DIP are heard by a government-appointed Administrative Dispute Resolution Committee, which functions similarly to the opposition and review boards found in other jurisdictions. Key Changes Decision No. 0306/IC covers four categories of administrative proceedings: Oppositions: Third-party challenges to a pending industrial property application before it is granted. Refusal appeals: Challenges to the DIP’s decision to refuse their application. Cancellation or deletion requests: Applications to invalidate an existing registered right on the grounds that it should not have been granted. Copyright and related rights disputes: Challenges to or interpretations of copyright and related rights recordations, including determinations of whether a work qualifies for copyright protection under Lao law. The most significant development is the committee’s new jurisdiction over copyright matters. The committee is now empowered to resolve disputes concerning copyright and related rights recordation—this includes the authority to determine whether a work qualifies for copyright protection and to interpret the scope of an existing recordation. Parties who believe a competitor has improperly recorded copyright over a work, or who wish to contest
Read More
April 30, 2026
Vietnam’s Decree No. 134/2026/ND‑CP, which took effect on 9 April 2026, plays an important role in detailing and implementing Vietnam’s Intellectual Property (IP) Law in the context of rapid digital transformation and the growing application of artificial intelligence (AI). The new decree provides comprehensive guidance on the application of copyright and related‑rights regulations, addressing key issues such as authorship, ownership, statutory exceptions and limitations, registration procedures, and enforcement mechanisms. Through these measures, Decree 134 seeks to achieve an appropriate balance between safeguarding the legitimate interests of rightsholders and fostering innovation, research, and technological advancement, thereby strengthening the state’s framework for the effective management, protection, and exploitation of intellectual property in the digital and AI‑driven environment. Some notable aspects of Decree 134 are discussed below. Copyright for AI-Created Works Decree 134 provides important guidance on the determination of copyright and related rights in works created with the assistance of AI. Article 5a reaffirms the principle that human creativity remains central to copyright protection, clarifying that copyright or related rights arise only where a human makes a substantial and decisive intellectual contribution, exercises effective control over the creative outcome, and assumes responsibility for the content and its legality. At the same time, the provision confirms that AI is regarded solely as a technological tool rather than a rights‑holding subject, thus ensuring consistency with the fundamental concepts of authorship and ownership under the IP Law. By introducing requirements on transparency, proof of human contribution, and compliance with AI‑specific labelling and technical marking obligations, Decree 134 establishes a clear and enforceable legal framework for the responsible use of AI in creative activities. Lawful Use of Copyrighted Texts and Data Article 37a of Decree 134 sets out the specific conditions under which copyrighted texts and data may be lawfully used for scientific research, experimentation,
Read More