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

August 28, 2012

3-D Printing: The Intellectual Property Challenge

Subscribe to Updates
Informed Counsel

Just last month, artificial blood vessels were made on a 3-D printer at the Fraunhofer Institute in Germany. One of the largest manufacturers and distributors of 3-D printers, Stratasys, has seen profits and demand climb since last year, and local companies such as AppliCAD are already profiting from sales in Thailand.

3-D printers use digital computer files to “print” physical objects using additive manufacturing; the object is built fusing layers of the material together at high temperatures. The ease, speed, and low cost of printing products—ranging from chocolate to prosthetic limbs to an airliner wing—with a newfound precision and quality has created the noise in the market. It can also build internal immovable parts simultaneously, reducing the time taken to market, on product assembly, and on prototype development. Furthermore, once a Computer-Aided Design (CAD) exists, it can be shared and distributed like other computer files.

The 3-D printers available in the consumer market are limited by types of materials, but are currently priced as low as USD 1000–2000. This revolutionary technology has opened doors to innovation and creativity, but has undoubtedly also created a widespread threat to intellectual property right holders whose patented designs can be scanned and reproduced using a perfectly affordable printer. There are some situations where 3-D printing will create issues both legally (in patent, trademark, and copyright law) and commercially that IPR holders must be wary of.

Design Patents in Thailand

When a spare part of a product breaks or goes missing, a 3-D printer can replace it. Assuming that such spare part is design-patented, if a consumer were to use a 3-D scanner or program to model the piece themselves, it would be almost impossible for the IPR owner to detect infringement and take action. Commercially, this would have a profound impact on the after-sales services that many businesses survive on.

With the help of CAD modification, 3-D printing will inspire many new ideas. In Thailand, patent law is separated into invention and design patents. While the doctrine of equivalents is available for invention patents, and Chapter 3 of the Patent Act B.E. 2522 (1979) recognizes that substantially similar design patents constitute patent infringements, IPR holders may still face problems enforcing their rights due to complexities in proving so.

The Thai Patent Act allows IPR holders to seek criminal and civil remedies against parties involved in the production and use of counterfeit goods. Prosecuting individuals or small businesses, in a country where raids are always a challenge, may eventually be futile. It is unfeasible for IPR holders to detect every act of infringement in the face of an imminent increase. Changes to enforcement and perhaps the rigor with which courts assess evidence of infringement are more effective alternatives.

3-D Trademarks

Trademark law will be affected in cases where 2-D trademarks and logos are copied onto printed products, and where counterfeit products with 3-D trademarks are copied and printed illegally. However, if a product with a registered trademark were purchased, then subsequently copied and printed for personal use, the consumer would not be held liable for infringement. Used this way, the technology will have a seriously adverse impact on commodities businesses and mass production, thus necessitating legislative amendments in the future. Of course, if used commercially, IPR owners will still have strong grounds for legal action.

Developments in Thai Copyright Law

Thai copyright law is necessary to regulate file-sharing websites as a preventive measure, and must therefore see concrete legislative and judicial developments.

In Thailand, service providers may not be liable for simply hosting file-sharing; they are not directly involved in uploading/downloading illegal content, and contributory infringement does not explicitly exist in Thai copyright law. However, practitioners believe that IPR holders can enforce their rights against service providers through the tort law of joint liability, under Section 432 of the Civil and Commercial Code, or under Section 86 (assisting a criminal offense) of the Criminal Code.

Alternatively, the Department of Intellectual Property (DIP) has shown willingness to use Sections 14 and 20 of the Computer Crimes Act B.E. 2550 (2007) to prosecute the distribution of “partially spurious” or “false” data that is likely to cause injury to the public, affect the security of the Kingdom, or be inconsistent with public order or good morals. It is not clear whether courts will read these sections to include counterfeit goods and copyrighted files; however, the increase in 3-D printing may indeed eventually clarify this.

As file-sharing websites such as Thingiverse begin to include files for 3-D printing, they have already faced take-down notices in accordance with the Digital Millennium Copyright Act 1998 (DMCA). In Thailand, however, the Copyright Bill (adopting the DMCA), drafted five years ago to enforce royalties of copyrighted music on the internet, is still pending enactment due to political reasons. Perhaps 3-D printing, as a “disruptive” technology, will help to accelerate lawmaking in this area.

The Future and Alternatives

Although 3-D printing is indeed still in its infancy, the potential disruption to intellectual property rights and laws cannot be undermined. When photocopiers first made it possible to reproduce any book or printed page quickly, cheaply, and in large quantities, novels were not copied and resold; instead, teachers printed hundreds of packs containing copyrighted materials, fewer books were sold, and hardcovers lost their value. Eventually, however, universities signed licensing deals, publishers regained some profits, and booksellers diversified. History repeated itself with the internet, and the DMCA was enacted in the United States, after which the music industry stigmatized peer-to-peer file transfer protocols and banned file hosts such as Napster to help the music industry survive.

It is clear that IP enforcement methods must be developed to deal with this new technology, while legislators will soon feel the need to introduce amendments. For now though, businesses must take careful steps in registering their rights correctly and finding commercially viable options, such as offering CAD models of their products or spare parts online for a small price, or even developing an iTunes model for their products.

Download Full Article
Related Professionals

Practices

Intellectual Property

Location

RELATED INSIGHTS​ 

September 24, 2026
Vietnam is implementing and developing a broad package of regulatory reforms that could reshape how IP, data, digital platforms, and product authenticity are regulated and enforced. Several of the key measures have been led by the Ministry of Public Security in its legislative and administrative capacity, as part of a broader government effort. The core reform package consists of four key legal instruments: proposed amendments to the Criminal Code, a proposed new Data Security Law, a draft Decree on Product Identification, Authentication and Traceability, and the newly enacted Decree No. 330/2026/ND-CP. These instruments include rules on criminal enforcement, data security, electronic identification, product identification and traceability, administrative violations, and cybersecurity sanctions. Combined, these measures will affect copyright enforcement, industrial property rights, trade secrets, AI training data, product provenance, online takedowns, valuation of counterfeit goods and electronic evidence. It is worth noting that, in addition to strengthening criminal penalties for IP crimes, Vietnam’s emerging regulatory framework increasingly treats infringement, data misuse, product authentication, and platform-enabled violations as interconnected regulatory and enforcement challenges. For rights holders and foreign investors, this could mean stronger tools against counterfeiting and online infringement, but also more compliance obligations around data, traceability, AI, platform controls and government-facing reporting. Expansion of Criminal IP Enforcement Proposed amendments to Article 225 of the Criminal Code would expand criminal copyright exposure beyond reproduction and distribution to cover large-scale commercial public performance and online communication of works, phonograms and video recordings. This is important because piracy is increasingly about streaming, unauthorized communication, and platform access models rather than physical copying. Aggravated copyright infringement could be subject to up to 10 years in prison for individuals and fines of up to VND 6 billion (about USD 228,300) for commercial legal entities. The amended Article 226 would expand criminal industrial property liability beyond
Read More
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