Trade dress, which refers to the visual appearance of a product and packaging, as well as the product’s placement at its point-of-sale (store layout), was at the center of an infringement case that recently obtained the highest damages award ever given for a trademark case in Thailand. Trade dress is an important branding consideration because it can create a commercial impression and enable the public to recognize the original source of goods and services, distinct from other traders. Trade dress comes in many different forms, but only a few of them find solid protection in Thailand, and only through creative use of existing intellectual property protections. For instance, a unique packaging design in the form of an unfolded paper box could be eligible for trademark registration. A distinctive product configuration or external design of a container might be eligible for registration as a three-dimensional trademark, or even as a design patent if it features lines or colors giving a special appearance to a novel product that has an industrial application. In addition, a product’s configuration could be subject to copyright protection as a “sculpture work” if it shows a figure with tangible volume. However, in Thailand, trade dress does not yet receive explicit recognition under the country’s Trademark Law—unlike in some other jurisdictions whose trademark laws permit the registration of trade dress. The protection and enforcement of trade dress in the form of “store layout” in particular has been a constant challenge in Thailand, given the lack of explicit laws and precedence. Consequently, brand owners may have a hard time protecting their trade dress in relation to their creative and unique store layout designs, despite a great deal of effort and financial investment. But now this appears to be changing: In December 2021, Tilleke & Gibbins successfully secured a precedent judgment on

For years, an inadequate compensation mechanism has been a limitation in resolving IP infringement disputes in Vietnam through civil measures. This limitation was once again highlighted in an appellate trial at the Superior People’s Court of Ho Chi Minh City on February 21, 2022, in which the appellate court reviewed a judgment of the People’s Court of Ho Chi Minh City dated April 28, 2021. Outline of the Case The facts of the case are quite simple. A Ho Chi Minh City-based company that provides educational equipment was discovered by the Inspectorate of the Ministry of Culture, Sports and Tourism to be using, without authorization, a specialized computer program from a company based in the United States. The inspection agency issued a decision to administratively sanction the Vietnamese company. The sanction included a small fine of VND 30 million (approximately USD 1,315) and the forced removal of the infringing computer program, which the infringer readily complied with. Thus, the administrative aspect of the case was completed. The company behind the software then filed a civil case against the infringer at the People’s Court of Ho Chi Minh City. Among the plaintiff’s claims, the most important was the amount of compensation for damages: over USD 500,000, equivalent to the value of the full-module computer program that was found to be illegally installed and copied on the defendant’s computer. In fact, the plaintiff has sold software licenses for this full module version through resellers in Vietnam for the same amount. In addition to claiming compensation for damages, the plaintiff also demanded that the defendant make a public apology and pay an additional VND 300 million (USD 13,150) to cover the plaintiff’s legal fees. Court Judgments The first-instance court determined that the defendant had indeed infringed the IP rights of the plaintiff and required the defendant to make

As many countries have experienced firsthand, corruption and bribery can have severe and far-reaching effects throughout a country’s political and economic systems. They not only impact the financial status and administrative ability of the countries involved, but at the same time, can also create and perpetuate a negative image of those countries to current or potential trade or investment partners. Recognizing the importance of minimizing or eliminating the damaging effects of bribery and corruption, many countries have made—and continue to make—efforts to strengthen their anticorruption and antibribery capabilities. Thailand has enacted relevant laws and enforced anticorruption measures in both the public and private sectors. Under Thai law, a bribe can take the form of property or a benefit. “Property” can be tangible (such as money, a car, a house, etc.) or intangible (such as copyrights, patents, etc.), while a “benefit” can be a gift, a discount, entertainment, healthcare costs, a job promotion, and so on. This article discusses the key provisions related to criminal offenses committed by private parties under three anticorruption laws in Thailand: Organic Act on Anti-Corruption B.E. 2561 (2018) Public Procurement and Supplies Administration Act, B.E. 2560 (2017) Act on Offenses Relating to the Submission of Bids to State Agencies B.E. 2542 (1999) Organic Act on Anti-Corruption The key provision of the Organic Act on Anti-Corruption (OAAC) is Section 176, which prohibits giving, offering, or promising property or a benefit to a public official, foreign public official, or official of a public international organization with the intent to induce the official to wrongfully perform his or her duty. Violations are subject to criminal liability, punishable by imprisonment for up to five years, a fine of up to THB 100,000 (approx. USD 3,000), or both. If the offender is a person associated with a company that does not have appropriate internal control measures to prevent

Indonesia’s National Agency of Drug and Food Control (BPOM) has recently issued several new regulations governing advertisements for cosmetic products in the country. The main regulation—BPOM Regulation No. 32 of 2021 concerning Cosmetics Advertising—took effect on December 13, 2021, and revokes previous regulations regarding cosmetics advertising from 2016. The key aspects of the new regulation are outlined below. Cosmetic Claims The list of prohibited claims for cosmetic products is no longer included with the regulation. Instead, BPOM issued a stand-alone regulation on cosmetic claims as Regulation No. 3 of 2022, which was enacted on January 7, 2022. This regulation on cosmetic claims contains nonexhaustive lists of prohibited and allowed claims for cosmetic products. The new regulation states that published cosmetics advertisements must correspond to the information on the cosmetic product notification. This differs from the previous regulation, which only stated that published cosmetics advertisements were acceptable as long as they were in accordance with the Technical Guidelines for Cosmetics Advertising. Nonetheless, advertisements for cosmetics still do not have to be approved by BPOM prior to their publication. Publication Media Unlike the previous regulation, which only listed electronic, printed, or outdoor media for publishing advertisements for cosmetic products, the new regulation details six main types of advertising media: Printed media: Gazettes, magazines, tabloids, newspapers, bulletins, posters or flyers, leaflets, stickers, booklets, pamphlets, yellow pages, catalogs, and any other printed media  targeting a limited audience in a certain sector, industry, entity, or profession (i.e., non-mass media). Broadcast media: Television (including running-text classifieds, superimposed ads, and “built-in” ads displayed during a television program), radio, and cinema. Online media: Activities (such as searches of websites and webpages), e-commerce, games, social media (e.g., Instagram, Facebook, Twitter), applications, publications, transportation on demand, display ads, video ads, and entertainment, in various possible formats (such as video, audio, and banner). Outdoor media: Advertising boards, billboards, decorative

The copyright law currently in effect in Thailand is the Copyright Act B.E. 2537 (1994), which came into force in March 1995. After 20 years, a new amendment came into effect in August 2015, with a focus on updating the law for the digital age, followed by a further amendment that became effective in March 2019 to comply with the Marrakesh Treaty providing exemptions to copyright infringement for people with disabilities. Recently, to comply with the World Intellectual Property Organization Copyright Treaty (WCT) and update practices in combating online infringement, the Thai Copyright Act has been amended once again. This article will explore the backstory behind this amendment, highlight the law’s successes and potential areas of concern, and explain what copyright owners, practitioners, and—most importantly—internet service providers (ISPs) should be aware of in order to comply with this law, which was published in the Government Gazette on February 24, 2022, and will become effective on August 23, 2022. The Backstory Despite the modernizing focus of the 2015 amendment, in recent years Thailand recognized the necessity of strengthening copyright protection and modernizing the law further to cope with online infringement problems fueled by today’s rapid technological change. Previously, the Copyright Act B.E. 2537 (1994), as amended in 2015, provided a specific mechanism to solve online copyright infringement. This mechanism, which appeared in Section 32/3 of the law, differed from the clearly defined notice-and-takedown system favored in several other countries by relying on the courts to resolve copyright infringement matters in relation to the provision on ISP liability and safe harbors. As the law did not include adequate notification procedures or rapid dispute resolution mechanisms, the implementation of Section 32/3 became impractical. In addition, the definition of an ISP was broad, so “mere conduit” (or intermediary) ISPs would often receive court orders to remove infringing

The Securities and Exchange Commission of Thailand (SEC) will refresh its definitions of institutional, high-net-worth (HNW), and ultra-high-net-worth (UHNW) investors according to its recently issued Notification No. Kor Jor 39/2564, effective on October 1, 2022. The key changes to these classifications are described below. Institutional Investors The SEC’s list of types of institutional investors will be expanded by the addition of the following four types: Venture capital. This refers to juristic persons established under Thai or foreign law for the purpose of investing in a startup, whereby the investors must not be retail investors. Private equity. This describes businesses established under Thai or foreign law for the purpose of investment by three or more nonretail investors who have appointed a person to manage the investment funds and accrued assets. The business must also have a policy to invest in other enterprises through arrangements that involve either stock investment agreements or other financial support giving rise to the right to acquire stock in the enterprise in the future. Under such arrangements, the private equity investor must demonstrate involvement in the enterprise’s business management (e.g., through planning, developmental, or other operational control). Sophisticated/professional investors. This type of investor includes (1) fund managers or derivatives fund managers in accordance with the Capital Market Supervisory Board’s rules on capital market business personnel; (2) investment analysts authorized by the SEC; and (3) angel investors, defined as experienced and knowledgeable SEC-approved financial advisors or crowdfunding portal providers, or other individual or juristic investors, with net assets of at least THB 50 million, annual revenue of at least THB 4 million, or gross direct investment in securities and derivatives of at least THB 10 million (or THB 20 million if cash deposits are aggregated). Investments by angel investors are limited to securities offered by SMEs or startups, or securities offered through

On March 7, 2022, the government of Vietnam issued Resolution No. 27/NQ-CP (“Resolution 27”) approving the promulgation of the latest version of the Draft Decree on Personal Data Protection (“Draft PDPD”) prepared by the Ministry of Public Security (“MPS”), and further instructed the MPS to pass this draft to the National Assembly’s Standing Committee for final consideration. Although the full content of the approved Draft PDPD has not been made available to the public, Resolution 27 clearly sets out several circumstances approved by the government in which processing of personal data can be carried out without the consent of the data subjects. In comparison with the corresponding provision under the widely seen version of the Draft PDPD made available to the public in February 2021 (“February Draft”), the main differences are as follows: If the data processing is necessary in response to an emergency situation that threatens the life, health, or safety of the data subject or other individual, the data controller, data processor, data controller/processor, or a third party can process the personal data without consent of the data subject, but they are responsible for proving that the situation is an emergency. The February Draft did not mention any requirement of proof. Moreover, “safety of the data subject or other individual” is a newly added criterion for personal data processing without consent under this circumstance. If the data processing is necessary because of national defense and security requirements, the processing must be carried out by competent authorities in accordance with other laws. The requirement that the processing must be carried out “by competent authorities” in this circumstance was not provided under the February Draft. Two circumstances have been removed: the processing of personal data in compliance with specific provisions that explicitly allow the processing of personal data without the data subject’s consent

On February 15, 2022, Thailand’s cabinet approved in principle a package of incentives to promote electric vehicle (EV) adoption in Thailand, with the aim of making the country an EV manufacturing hub in Asia. A week later, the cabinet approved further draft regulations including specific information on customs duty reductions and exemptions for certain types of imported EVs. The plan includes both tax and non-tax incentives from 2022 until 2025. In the first two years (2022–2023), the package incentivizes the widespread use of EVs in Thailand by providing exemption or reduction of import duties and excise tax, as well as subsidies to increase the demand for EVs and attract investment in the EV industry. These incentives will cover the importation of completely built up (CBU) cars and motorcycles, and the local manufacturing of completely knocked down (CKD) vehicles in Thailand. For the following two years (2024–2025), the plan promotes the use of domestically produced EVs by eliminating the exemption or reduction of import duties for CBU vehicles while maintaining the other incentives (e.g., reduced excise tax rates, and subsidies). The aim of this is to make the cost of CBU vehicles higher than locally produced vehicles to encourage operators to produce EVs in the country to meet increasing demand. Additional measures encourage the manufacturing of EVs in Thailand, including exemption of import duties for parts imported between 2022 and 2025, and treatment of the value of imported battery cells as a cost of local manufacturing (up to 15% of an EV’s retail price). This is beneficial to local manufacturers of EVs, as their activities will be entitled to a more generous incentive package than importation of EVs. At their meeting on February 22, 2022, Thailand’s cabinet further approved draft subordinate regulations, including specific reductions and exemptions of customs duty for CBU units of