Thailand’s Trade Competition Commission issued new guidelines on unfair trade practices in response to new practices that have arisen due to changing business models and other economic developments.

過去2年間、COVID-19のパンデミックはタイのほとんどの企業に深刻な影響を与えており、多くの伝統的企業は、賃金や給付金の削減、一時的な事業停止、さらには従業員の解雇など、生き残るために思い切った対策を取らなければなりませんでした。しかし、革新的なスタートアップ企業やオンラインビジネスはこのような問題に打ち勝ち、代わりにこの期間に急速な成長を見せている企業も多くみられます。ただし、これらの企業は別の問題に直面しています。それは、良い人材を確保するための競合相手との間の激しい戦いに直面し、従業員を維持するのに苦労していることです。これは、特に、技術者やプログラマーに当てはまります。彼らの専門知識や技術的知識はこれらの分野の企業にとって、貴重な資産です。 従業員が競合他社に流出することは、企業秘密の漏えいや主要な取引先の喪失など、企業に多くのリスクをもたらす可能性があります。これらの利益を保護するために、企業は競業禁止、勧誘禁止及び秘密保持条項を含む雇用契約を作成することが考えられます。これらの条項は、退職後を含め、従業員の該当行為を制限するために使用できます。本記事では、このような条項を企業がどのように利用すべきかについて説明いたします。   競業禁止条項 競業禁止条項は、従業員が雇用期間中及び雇用後に競合企業で働くことを禁止します。タイ王国最高裁判所は、競業禁止条項を承認し、執行しています。しかし、裁判所は、企業の利益と労働権を含む従業員の人権とのバランスを取らなければなりません。具体的には、企業に正当な利益があるかどうか、企業を保護するために競業禁止条項が必要かどうかを検討します。これを判断するにあたって、裁判所は特に下記の点を考慮します。 従業員の地位及び義務：重要な考慮事項の1つは、当該従業員の役割および当該従業員が会社の機密情報及び技術に触れているかです。従業員が機密情報に触れることがない場合には、競合相手において勤務することを禁止する必要はありません。例えば、食品製造ラインで働く従業員は通常、独自の技術や機密情報のレシピにはアクセスできません。このような状況では、タイの裁判所は従業員に対して競業禁止条項を執行することはしません。競合企業は、当該従業員を雇用することによって不公正な利益を得ることはなく、最初の雇用主の事業に影響を与えることもないからです。従業員が特別の情報又は機密情報にアクセスできる場合、禁止の範囲は従業員の役割によって異なりますが、競合相手において勤務することを禁止することが必要になる場合があります。顧客情報を取り扱う銀行出納係については、当該情報の不公正な使用を防止するために、短期間、競合相手のために働くことを合理的に禁止することが考えられます。これとは対照的に、マネージング・ディレクターについては、機密情報、サプライヤー契約、企業秘密などに無制限にアクセスできるため、競合相手で勤務することを長期間禁止することが考えられます。 地理的距離：競業禁止条項は、特定の地域に適用されることが多くみられます。特定の地域としては、雇用者の土地からの距離やある都市などの特定のエリアで規定されることがみられます。裁判所は、当該条項が企業の利益と従業員の権利との間で合理的なバランスをとっているかを判断する際に、地理的範囲を考慮します。広範囲の地域に競業禁止を適用する条項は、従業員の労働できる能力に深刻な影響を与える可能性があり、裁判所によって執行される可能性は低くなります。ただし、最高裁判所は以前、大規模な地域企業のマネージングディレクターについての訴訟では、東南アジア全域に適用される競業禁止条項について認める判断をしています。 禁止期間：競業禁止条項の合理性を判断するもう1つの要素は、雇用終了後に当該従業員が競合相手で勤務することが禁止される期間です。何が合理的であるかは、従業員の立場、部門、当該従業員を雇用することによって競合相手が不公正な利益を得るかによって異なります。いくつかの事例では、タイ王国最高裁判所は2年の競業禁止期間を認めていますが、マネージング・ディレクターに関する事例では5年の競業禁止期間も認めました。 損害賠償：競業禁止条項を含む契約には、条項の違反に対する損害賠償を規定することもできます。当該条項は執行可能ですが、裁判所が、契約により設定された金額が高額すぎると判断した場合には、損害賠償額を減額することができます。   勧誘禁止 勧誘禁止条項は、競合相手に転職した従業員が、以前の雇用主の顧客や従業員に接触して、新しい会社に転職するよう勧誘することを禁止しています。タイの裁判所は通常、勧誘禁止条項を有効とし、執行します。特に、以前の雇用主のもとで、当該従業員の役割が顧客と強い関係を築くことが可能だった場合、又は当該従業員が専門チーム内で協力して働いていた場合には、勧誘禁止条項を執行します。 裁判所は、企業の利益を保護するために合理的に必要な場合にのみ、この種の制限条項を執行します。したがって場合によっては、裁判所が勧誘禁止条項を執行する一方で、競業禁止条項は執行しないことも考えられます。企業にとって可能な限り広範な保護を得るためには、雇用契約に競業禁止と勧誘禁止の両方の条項を含めるべきでしょう。   備考：本和文は英文記事を翻訳したものです。原文については、以下のリンクをご参照ください。Non-competition and Non-solicitation: Protecting Startups and Online Businesses from the Loss of Employees – Tilleke & Gibbins

For the past two years, the COVID-19 pandemic has had a severe impact on most businesses in Thailand, and many traditional businesses have had to take drastic measures to survive, such as reducing wages and benefits, temporarily ceasing their operations, and even laying off employees. However, a number of innovative startups and online businesses have bucked this trend, and have instead seen rapid growth during this period. These companies face a different problem: a struggle to retain their employees in the face of a fierce battle among competitors to attract top talent. This is particularly true for technicians and programmers whose expertise and technical knowledge are valuable assets for companies in these sectors. The loss of employees to competitors can pose many risks to a business, including the exposure of trade secrets and the loss of key business contacts. To protect these interests, businesses can prepare employment contracts which contain non-competition, non-solicitation and confidentiality clauses. These clauses can be used to restrict employees, including after they leave the company. This article will explain how businesses can make use of such contract clauses. Non-competition Non-compete clauses prevent an employee from working for a competitor during and after their employment. The Thai Supreme Court has recognised and enforced non-compete clauses. However, courts must balance the interest of the business against the human rights of the employee, including the right to work. In particular, the court will consider whether the business has a legitimate interest and whether the non-compete clause is necessary to protect it. In doing this, the court will focus on a number of different features. Employee’s position and duties. One key consideration is the role of the employee and their exposure to the company’s confidential information and technology. If staff are not exposed to confidential information, there is no need to prohibit them from

Attorneys from Tilleke & Gibbins contributed the Thailand chapter of the recently released Patent Litigation Global Guide, a Q&A-style guide that offers detailed overviews of courtroom and litigation procedure in connection with patent dispute resolution. The guide, which is published by Practical Law, provides comprehensive overviews of patent litigation in 35 jurisdictions worldwide. The Thailand section of the guide was coauthored by Nandana Indananda, partner, Piyawat Kayasit, senior associate, and Manaswee Wongsuryat, associate, and it discusses the following main issues: Sources of law Court system Substantive law Parties to litigation Enforcement options Competition and antitrust Procedure in civil courts Preliminary relief Final remedies Appeal procedure Litigation costs Standard essential patents (SEPs); fair, reasonable, and nondiscriminatory (FRAND) licensing; and antisuit injunctions Practical Law, which is owned by Thomson Reuters, is the world’s leading legal know-how resource for business lawyers, publishing a wide range of guides covering hundreds of jurisdictions and practice areas. The full Thailand overview from the Patent Litigation Global Guide can be accessed on the Practical Law website.

The enactment of Thailand’s Narcotics Code, effective December 10, 2021, marked a key milestone in promoting the commercial applications of cannabis (both marijuana and hemp) and kratom as economic plants—with subsequent regulatory developments continuing this push. For many decades, cannabis and kratom were classified as category 5 narcotics under the Narcotics Act. However, a movement for the legalization of cannabis and kratom developed over time. First, the legalization of marijuana (Cannabis indica) for medical purposes became effective on February 19, 2019, as prescribed in Amendment No. 7 of the Narcotics Act. Kratom has also been effectively decriminalized (covering consumption, production, disposal, and possession for any purpose) since August 24, 2021, as prescribed in Amendment No. 8 of the Narcotics Act. The laws governing narcotic and psychotropic substances in Thailand have now taken a significant step forward with the passage of the Narcotics Code, which is intended to be a comprehensive law covering all narcotics and psychotropic substances in Thailand. Most recently, the Ministry of Public Health announced in the Government Gazette on February 2, 2022, that only cannabis extract (both marijuana and hemp) with THC of more than 0.2% by weight will be classified as a category 5 narcotic. This means that seeds, cannabis plants, and inflorescences, if harvested in Thailand, have been removed from the list of category 5 narcotics. Although the changes to Thailand’s narcotics regulations for cannabis and kratom are intricate, both cannabis and kratom have become a topical issue for farmers and related industries. The plants are new cash crops and have attracted widespread public interest. Currently, we can see fresh kratom leaves and fresh cannabis leaves sold in the market. Unlike products with cannabis derivatives, kratom-based products are not yet available in the Thai market. Although there is an opportunity for developing kratom-based products as energy drinks,

On February 14, 2022, Thailand’s Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) announced a public hearing period on proposed advertising regulations for digital asset businesses. The public hearing period is now open for general comments until March 15, 2022. In the announcement, the SEC expressed their intention to provide clear digital asset advertising principles that conform to regulations in other countries, such as Singapore, the UK, and Japan. The SEC, in a meeting on February 3, agreed that the principles to be developed should apply to all digital asset businesses operating in Thailand. During the public hearing period, any interested parties may comment on the SEC’s proposed principles, which include the following key points: Advertisements that educate, inform, or give facts about digital assets, investments or services, or that provide an overall picture of digital assets, must not exaggerate, distort, or conceal information, or otherwise mislead consumers. In addition, advertisements that refer to customer numbers must only indicate the number of customers who have received approval to open an account and who are ready to use the service. Advertisements must be clear and appropriate, provide a warning on investment risks, and include clear and noticeable SEC-mandated statements in the font size stipulated by the SEC. Advertisements that present positive information or suggest an opportunity to receive returns must provide a balanced view that also discloses negative information or states investment risks. Advertisements relating to cryptocurrencies can only be made via a business operator’s official channels (e.g., the operator’s website, app, or other official online channel), and cryptocurrency cannot be advertised in public areas (e.g., billboards, public transportation, websites, newspapers and periodicals, etc.). However, advertisements for the services of a digital assets business can still be made in public areas and other channels. For example, this can be understood as meaning that an exchange can advertise in public

The sale of counterfeit goods online is as damaging to government efforts and consumer safety as it is to the reputation of the e-commerce platforms and brand owners involved. In this guest piece, Andy Chua, senior vice president of the IP Rights Protection Team at e-commerce giant Lazada, joins Tilleke & Gibbins’ Suebsiri Taweepon and Ploynapa Julagasigorn to discuss how stakeholders can work together to combat the growing threat of counterfeits online – with recent efforts in Thailand a prime example of effective action. This article, which was first published in World Trademark Review, is the second in a two-part series about trademark enforcement against online counterfeits.   Technological developments, government policy and the covid-19 pandemic have brought about significant changes to the lifestyle and behaviour of ordinary consumers. Shopping increasingly takes place on e-commerce platforms as people become more familiar with online transactions, encouraging many sellers to turn their focus to online platforms. While this shift to online retail has brought benefits for many, it has also provided additional ways for sellers of counterfeit goods to peddle their wares. The sale of counterfeit goods online tarnishes the reputation of e-commerce platforms among users, compromises consumer trust in brand owners’ products and undermines public authorities’ efforts in enforcing anti-counterfeiting policies. This dynamic problem cannot be resolved by a single entity alone. Instead, all stakeholders need to work together to amplify their efforts in consumer and brand protection. Collaborating against counterfeits in Thailand We see such collaborations between stakeholders in regions such as Thailand, where the Department of Intellectual Property (DIP) has signed a memorandum of understanding (MOU) with various parties that are committed to combatting the spread of counterfeit products online. The inaugural signing ceremony for the MOU was held on 11 January 2021, with 20 initial signatories drawn from the public sector (eg,