Thailand’s Department of Intellectual Property (DIP) periodically holds public ceremonies for the destruction of counterfeit products in order to raise awareness of intellectual property rights infringement and deter the public from violating these rights by buying or selling counterfeit goods. Normally these events are open-air, community events, open to the general public. However, this year, as a precautionary measure against the risk of COVID-19, the DIP held its first destruction ceremony via real-time video stream, with the DIP in Greater Bangkok coordinating with destruction sites in Saraburi and Chon Buri Provinces. The destruction ceremony was held on September 9, 2020, with the DIP convening a press conference at the Office of the Permanent Secretary, Ministry of Commerce, located in Nonthaburi (part of the Bangkok Metropolitan Area). While only a limited number of people were permitted to attend in person, the DIP allowed people to join the ceremony via online videoconferencing. At the event, Mr. Thosapone Dangsuputra, director-general of the DIP, announced that a total of 785,376 pirated  and counterfeit items, worth around THB 354 million (USD 11.7 million), had been seized through the persistent efforts of the government—in particular the Royal Thai Police, the Customs Department, and the Department of Special Investigations. These infringing goods, all of which were destroyed in the event, related to concluded cases in the Bangkok Metropolitan Area and surrounding provinces. Deputy minister of commerce Mr. Weerasak Wangsuphakitkosol presided over the destruction ceremony and delivered an opening speech, followed by a demonstration of the destruction process for both in-person attendees and those joining the ceremony virtually. The infringing products were sent for destruction using one of two methods. Pirated and counterfeit goods such as clothes, bags, and other combustible items were incinerated at the facility in Saraburi Province, while products that could not be burned or recycled, including car

It is not unusual for brand owners to take a closer look at the Thai market for their products only to find that a third party has already applied for registration of their trademark. Brand owners who face this situation usually become aware of it when they consider entering the Thai market after their brand has already become famous and successful elsewhere. Well-known marks are often usurped when a bad-faith applicant intentionally registers a trademark to benefit from the goodwill and reputation associated with that trademark. As Thailand is a first-to-file system for trademark registration, supplying proof of intention to use is not a requirement for registration. Thus, if a legitimate brand owner has never registered their trademark in Thailand, a bad-faith applicant might take advantage of this opening to file another person’s trademark in his or her own name. Overlooking the early securing of trademark rights in Thailand can lead to complex problems, even when brand owners have a relationship with a distributor in Thailand. The problem usually comes to light when a brand owner seeks to end their relationship with one distributor and start a business relationship with a new partner. In some cases, brand owners are blindsided when they learn that the previous distributor had surreptitiously filed for registration of the trademark in the distributor’s own name without alerting them—meaning that the former distributor now holds exclusive rights over the use of the trademark in Thailand. After finding out about a bad-faith trademark registration, many brand owners seek to cancel the Thai registration of the trademark to which they have better rights than the registrant. The Trademark Act provides several mechanisms that brand owners can rely on to pursue cancellation of trademark’s registration; however, none of the law’s provisions clearly state the possibility of canceling a trademark registered

Vietnam’s efforts against the outbreak of COVID-19 in the country have been largely successful, and despite two distinct spikes of local transmission, in both cases the spread was halted relatively quickly. As these complications from the COVID-19 pandemic have been playing out in Vietnam throughout 2020, it became clear that effective and strong enforcement of healthcare regulations, especially those related to disease control, was crucial. On September 28, 2020, the government of Vietnam took action on this by issuing Decree No. 117/2020/ND-CP (“Decree 117”), which provides penalties for administrative violations in the healthcare sector. Some provisions of Decree 117—mostly those related to disease control and epidemic situations—took effect immediately, with the remainder taking effect on November 15, 2020. The decree, which was based on a draft proposed by the Ministry of Health, replaced Decree No. 176/2013/ND-CP on the same matter. The main administrative penalties under Decree 117 are reprimands and fines. Depending on the severity of the violation, violators may also be subject to additional penalties such as suspension of a certificate of eligibility for pharmaceutical business (CEPB), a license for healthcare operation, or other licenses and practicing certificates for up to 24 months; confiscation of illegal items; suspension of operations for up to 24 months; or deportation. Furthermore, remedial measures such as forced return of illegal earnings, compulsory quarantine and medical examination, public correction, or compulsory payment of treatment fees may also be applied. Some key highlights of Decree 117 are discussed below. In relation to disease control, the maximum fine for failure to comply with quarantine is doubled to VND 20 million (USD 855) for infected people of type-A contagious diseases, and VND 10 million (USD 427) for those who are not infected but are asked to quarantine. Failure to declare one’s contagious disease to a doctor could be subject to

COVID-19 has had an economic impact across a wide range of industries, including hospitality, airlines, automotive, construction, logistics, and more, and many performance obligations on contractual parties have been rendered impossible. However, many others—while certainly more difficult, complicated, or expensive—remain literally or legally possible. While COVID-19 will continue to have a devastating impact on health and economies globally, governments—including Thailand’s—have implemented preventive and responsive measures in an attempt to mitigate that impact. On May 24, 2020, for example, the Committee for Government Procurement and Supplies Management circulated guidelines for the administration of contracts between private parties during the COVID-19 pandemic, announcing that the COVID-19 pandemic qualifies as a force majeure event. The specific period of force majeure in Thailand began with the government’s announcement of a state of emergency on March 26, 2020. See the previous article for more details on this measure. As market circumstances continue to evolve along with the impact of COVID-19, companies in Thailand are paying special attention to the role force majeure plays in navigating the various legal implications of commercial contracts during the outbreak. Force Majeure Clauses under Thai Law    In the midst of the COVID-19 pandemic many are wondering whether parties will be excused from performance under the doctrine of force majeure, by which parties can be excused from contractual performance that becomes impossible due to an extraordinary or exogenous event. For contracts that have no force majeure clause, the definition of force majeure under section 8 of the Civil and Commercial Code will automatically be applied. However, parties may negotiate a force majeure clause and establish a course of action to follow in such events of force majeure. This clause can also pertain to things like excuse of liability, right to terminate or revise the contract, and distribution of damages due to force majeure. Every force majeure clause should be considered and interpreted separately and in light

On September 30, 2020, Thailand’s Department of Intellectual Property (DIP) published its latest draft of the proposed amendments to the Patent Act B.E. 2522 (1979). The amendment process, which is taking place in two phases and has been pending for several years, began to take a higher profile in February 2018 with the convening of public hearings on the proposed new legislation. After a series of committee meetings through November of that year, the cabinet approved a set of proposed amendments in January 2019. The second phase in the amendment process then began, focusing on industrial design registration procedures and provisions to facilitate Thailand’s accession to the Hague Agreement Concerning the International Registration of Industrial Designs. The Committee on Patent Act Reform held nine meetings from March to November 2018, and then further discussed these proposed amendments with the Committee on the Law for the Development of Patents over seven meetings from February to July 2019. To get comments and recommendations on the proposed second-phase amendments, the DIP arranged public hearings from September to October 2019, before submitting the proposed amendments to the cabinet and Council of State for approval. On March 27, 2020, the Council of State requested that the proposed amendments from both phases be combined into a single Patent Act, thus shelving the initial idea of a separate Design Patent Act. Accordingly, the DIP made plans to revise the proposed amendments, using comments obtained during public hearings, before sending them to be reviewed by the Ministry of Commerce, the cabinet, the Council of State, and finally the parliament. This process began with the publication of the proposed amendments on the DIP’s website on September 30, 2020, and public hearings that were held through October 31, 2020. Patent-Related Amendments While these proposed amendments are likely to undergo changes as this process progresses,

The latest update to the Cambodia chapter of Thomson Reuters’ Practical Law guide to insurance and reinsurance has been published, written by legal practitioners from Tilleke & Gibbins’ Phnom Penh office.

Multilaw has launched the 2020 edition of its Real Estate Guide, including updated contributions for Cambodia, Laos, Myanmar, Thailand, and Vietnam provided by real estate specialists at Tilleke & Gibbins. This concise guide, which features contributions from Multilaw member firms in 58 jurisdictions worldwide, is designed to help investors navigate the complex global real estate landscape and overcome the key challenges they may face when managing real estate across borders. The guide outlines key legal requirements in each jurisdiction, focusing especially on the restrictions and taxes applicable in each country, and the legal methods available for registering and identifying real estate and property ownership. Tilleke & Gibbins is a proud member of Multilaw, a leading network of carefully selected, independent law firms consisting of over 8,000 lawyers in more than 150 commercial centers, able to provide expert legal advice in complex environments around the globe. The full Real Estate Guide  is available free on the Multilaw website.

Vietnamese cuisine has a growing reputation internationally, and a visit to Vietnam will quickly reveal that food plays a very important role in the country’s identity and culture, as well as its economy. More than 80% of the population makes a living through some form of agriculture, and approximately 35% of household income in Vietnam is spent on food and beverages. As food is the most essential of necessities, and thus the first priority in household spending, this percentage tends to be high in developing countries, declining as incomes rise.