Thailand has had insurance companies for over half a century, and the industry is regarded as competent and well regulated. The insurance industry was supervised and regulated by the Ministry of Commerce through the Casualty Insurance Act B.E. 2535 (A.D. 1992) and Life Insurance Act B.E. 2535 (A.D. 1992) until the recent amendments imposed by the Casualty Insurance Act (No. 2) B.E. 2551 (A.D. 2008) and Life Insurance Act (No. 2) B.E. 2551 (A.D. 2008), which transferred the supervisory and regulatory role of the Ministry of Commerce to the Ministry of Finance.

In 1998, Parliament approved the first amendment to the 1940 Bankruptcy Act in 15 years, and further amendments were made in both 1999 and 2000. These amendments reduce the bankruptcy period from ten years to three years and allow for the restructuring or reorganization of a company, similar to Chapter 11 provisions in the United States.

Land ownership in Thailand may be individual or shared with other Thais. Any Thai national may purchase land in the Kingdom. Land issues are governed primarily by the Land Code B.E. 2497 (A.D. 1954); Land Reform for Agriculture Act B.E. 2518 (A.D. 1975); Land Development Act B.E. 2543 (A.D. 2000); City Planning Act B.E. 2518 (A.D. 1975); Condominium Act B.E. 2522 (A.D. 1979) and its amendments; and Rules Relating to Land Allocation B.E. 2535 (A.D. 1992). Land regulations are determined by the Ministry of Interior.

Generic drug manufacturers in Thailand have become particularly active in recent years. There is a clear development trend among local generic producers to catch up with new technology and take advantage of the government’s pro-generic policy at the moment. Several generic manufacturers recently began to develop and market generic versions of various best-seller drugs, despite the fact that some of these drugs are still under valid patents in Thailand. This article introduces some defensive strategies that will allow drug originators to tackle these infringing generics.

In seeking to develop a comprehensive portfolio of trademark rights, many companies have begun to look beyond their product names and logos. For at least the past decade, these businesses have been seeking trademark registration of other aspects of their overall branding strategies, including the packages they use for their products. One such forward-thinking business is The Coca-Cola Company (Coca-Cola), which sought to obtain three-dimensional registrations of its famous bottle designs in Thailand.

It is widely recognized that juristic persons exist in the legal context only, under which a corporation will be liable for all obligations done in its name. Thus, according to the general principle, the directors of a company will not be held personally liable for the acts or obligations undertaken in the name of the company. This general principle, however, will not apply in the specific context of intellectual property rights infringement.

With Vietnam’s entry into the WTO, it is expected that franchising activity in the country will increase markedly over the next few years. There are presently a handful of major franchises operating in the country, including Kentucky Fried Chicken, Lotteria, Jollibee, Pho 24, Gloria Jean’s Coffees, Buntamita, and Cartridge World. In the past, Vietnamese law did not provide a clear basis for franchising arrangements, but the passage of Decree No. 35 and Circular No. 09 in 2006 laid the groundwork for franchising to develop in Vietnam.

The Consumer Case Procedure Act (CCPA), which came into effect on August 23, 2008, was heralded as a new law that would give better protection to consumers. The intention was to give consumers greater access to justice, by making the procedure for consumers to file claims more user-friendly and more efficient. In practice, however, the CCPA has had the opposite effect of actually increasing the length of time taken to handle cases. This article illustrates the problem of delays under the CCPA using two case studies as examples.