Foreign agrochemical companies usually opt to appoint their local distributors, agents, or licensees as the local entity to apply for and maintain product registration and import licenses as required by Asian Ministries of Agriculture. Such appointments are normally set out in the distribution agreement. While on most occasions this is a mutually beneficial relationship, sometimes local partners who have built up the business for those products may begin to compete unfairly or commit other breaches.

In our experience, many clients have regretted trusting their employees—and in some cases, their business partners—with their intellectual property rights. When a business becomes successful, it runs the risk of some employees or business partners believing that they could set up a similar business and apply key insights gleaned from the company’s IPR to attract the same customers and gain greater profits and market share.

In typical trade secrets cases, the alleged infringer will be a new employee, a former employee, or a third party whom the owner of the trade secret worked with (e.g., consultants, vendors, visitors to the factory, universities, outside inventors, or even governments). Since the two parties know each other, the conflict usually becomes more personal and it can lead to some difficulties when litigation occurs, especially when parties begin to personalize their grievances.

The Vietnam National Internet Centre (VNNIC) has reportedly received hundreds of complaints requesting the withdrawal of registered “.vn” domain names. The number of complaints has increased in direct proportion with the increase in the number of registered “.vn” domain names. The most common basis for such complaints is that the registered domain name is identical to the complainant’s registered trademark or trade name.

Given the importance and ubiquity of computers and the Internet in daily life, it is crucial to have effective statutes for protecting intellectual property rights and combating infringement. Thailand’s Computer Crime Act, enacted on July 18, 2007, was initially intended to address issues in cyberspace not previously covered by Thai criminal law. However, the Act does not explicitly address intellectual property matters.

Having recently become a member of the Patent Cooperation Treaty on December 24, 2009, Thailand is taking another important step to strengthen its commitment to internationally recognized means of protecting intellectual property. Thailand’s accession to the Madrid Protocol and the attendant International Registration of Marks, which it agreed to join along with the other ASEAN members to implement the ASEAN Economic Community blueprint, is nearer to becoming a reality.

Renewable energy is a major focus of Thailand’s energy policy. The Ministry of Energy has announced a plan which aims to increase the proportion of renewable energy in total consumption to 20.3% by 2022. This represents a huge increase, considering that renewable energy accounted for about 1.5% of Thailand’s energy consumption in 2009, depending on which sources one counts as renewable. Many investors are now considering establishing renewable energy plants here in Thailand, particularly given the generous incentives offered by the government.

The Council of State of the Thai Government is currently reviewing draft amendments to the Trademark Act. There are several proposals on the table, including: (1) the allowance of multiple-class applications; (2) the abolition of the “association” requirement for identical/similar marks owned by the same company; (3) the inclusion of “smell and sound” in the definition of a “trademark”; and (4) the introduction of a grace period for renewal applications.