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

December 14, 2012

Managing Intellectual Property for Entrepreneurs

Subscribe to Updates
Bangkok Post, Corporate Counsellor Column

On September 10, 2009, the Thai government established the National Creative Economy Policy Committee to set guidelines and translate policy into action by various government agencies. This led to the Creative Thailand program, which was intended to encourage the growth and competitiveness of businesses through creativity and research and development. Intellectual property rights (IPRs) play a crucial role in moving this policy forward.

Although the government has attempted to promote IPRs to the public through several channels, including publications and conferences, many business owners—especially entrepreneurs and new ventures—fail to understand the key link between IPRs and the success of their enterprise. If you are an entrepreneur or new venture, this article will provide you with guidelines for effectively managing your IPRs.

Guidance for IPR Users

Some companies develop their own IPRs, while others are simply IPR users. The latter model does not rely on creating IPRs; instead, the company may seek permission from the rights holder to use the rights. For businesses such as distributors and franchisees that rely on this model, there are two important keys to be considered:

• Conduct an IP survey: Entrepreneurs and new ventures should supplement their standard market surveys by conducting an IP survey in order to understand what IPRs already exist in the market and how to avoid infringing them.

For example, if you are going to use a new brand with your products, you should conduct a trademark search at the Department of Intellectual Property (DIP) to determine whether anyone has already registered the same or a similar mark in Thailand. When introducing a new technology, a patent search will show whether your new product—or the technology involved in producing it—is already protected as a patent in Thailand. For complex technologies, a more thorough “Freedom-to-Operate” report from an IP lawyer may be required to make sure your product does not infringe an existing patent registration.

• Register your licensing agreement: If your business operates by using IPRs owned by others, you need to register your trademark licensing agreement or patent licensing agreement with the DIP. If you fail to do so, the agreement will be void and non-enforceable between the affected parties.

In a franchise agreement that includes a clause for the franchisor to grant trademark or patent rights to the franchisee, the franchise agreement should similarly be registered as a licensing agreement.

By registering the licensing agreement, you will protect your company when you use or sell products bearing the registered IPR, and the licensee or franchisee can fully exercise the rights under the law.

Additional Steps for IPR Owners

Companies that move beyond merely using IPRs and begin to innovate will likely hold a wide range of IPRs—not only trademarks, copyrights, patents, and trade secrets, but also domain names, websites, know-how, and more. These IPRs are important company assets and must be managed effectively so they can contribute to revenue growth and profitability. Companies that are creating their own IPRs should be sure to take the following four steps:

1. Take an initial inventory: Knowing what IP you have, what your IPRs are worth, how your IPRs are protected, and how they should be protected will help you get the maximum value from your creation and development. This can be difficult for a new venture, which may not know much about IP law and the scope of IPR protection. At this first stage, you may need to consult with your company’s legal adviser. Then you can evaluate the IPRs within the company’s broader portfolio of assets and implement the proper measures to manage them.

2. Ensure compliance: By obtaining full protection of your IPRs under the law, you can ensure compliance while also contributing to your company’s bottom line. For example, if you create a new trademark or brand, you should register the trademark or brand with the DIP. If you come up with a unique idea or invention, obtaining patent protection will give you the exclusive right over the invention and prevent unauthorized use by your competitors. Your company may consider recording copyrighted works with the DIP to prove the company’s IPRs more easily in the future.

Without the proper protection, some IP may be walking right out the company’s door through employees, former employees, or visitors who are using e-mail, data storage devices, the telephone, or just taking things home. Today’s employees may be tomorrow’s competitors.

3. Create an IP portfolio: After initially managing your IPRs, collecting and keeping evidence to prove that your company is the true owner of these IPRs is necessary so that you will be prepared in the event of any infringement or opposition in the future. Trademark owners should collect documents demonstrating the use of the trademark in Thailand, such as advertisements, invoices showing sales figures of the mark, etc., to prove the well-known status of the mark in Thailand. It is also crucial to manage the deadline or expiration date for each of your IPR registrations to ensure timely payment of annuity fees or renewal fees.

4. Enforce and exploit rights: Monitoring and enforcing your IPRs is also essential, as the more popular your products become, the higher the chance your IPRs will be infringed. If you learn that a competitor has infringed your IPRs, you should enforce your rights through the relevant government authorities such as through raids against infringers or administrative methods, such as sending a cease-and-desist letter or mediation through the DIP.

By taking the simple steps outlined above, you can ensure your IPRs are well protected, which in turn will set a strong foundation for future innovation, faster growth, and improved profitability.

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