Tilleke & Gibbins has been honored with accolades in 11 categories of the 2024 Thailand Law Firm Awards from Asia Business Law Journal (ABLJ). The awards recognize the top law firms across a range of practice areas, plus a separate category for the best overall law firms. The firm was recognized as a leader in the following categories: Best Overall Law Firms Aviation Competition & Antitrust Data Compliance & Cybersecurity ESG Fintech Healthcare & Life Sciences Labor & Employment Shipping & Maritime Taxation Technology, Media & Telecoms The awards were determined by ABLJ‘s research team, which evaluates law firms based on their recent work, client feedback, and reputation in the market. ABLJ is a legal publication in Asia that provides in-depth coverage of legal and business developments in the region. Through its research and dissemination of key insights, ABLJ seeks to provide in-house counsel with the necessary information and analysis to implement effective legal solutions. The annual Thailand Law Firm Awards celebrate excellence and innovation in the country’s legal industry. For more information on the 2024 Thailand Law Firm Awards, and to browse of the full list of winners, please see the ABLJ website.

Litigation is usually the last resort in resolving disputes. Most parties to a dispute try to avoid litigation altogether, fearing that seeking recourse with the courts or arbitration will lead to a disruption in commercial relationships, result in increased legal expenses, and generally lengthen the period in which the dispute remains unresolved. While some of these concerns may indeed be legitimate, sometimes litigation is the only means for a party to obtain relief. For parties contemplating such recourse, it is reassuring to know that the Thai court system is generally an accessible, unbiased, and balanced vehicle for the resolution of disputes. Civil Litigation in Thailand aims to introduce some of the fundamentals of Thai civil court procedures and practices. This brief guide covers the main issues concerning civil litigation in Thailand as either a plaintiff or a defendant. The full guide is available through the button below.

Trademark disputes in Thailand have undergone a significant transformation with the recent implementation of streamlined procedures aimed at expediting legal proceedings. This article explores the traditional process for resolving noncomplex trademark cases and introduces the latest regulatory amendments designed to enhance efficiency within the Thai legal framework. Traditional Process Overview The trademark registration process in Thailand involves several steps, including filing, examination, and granting registration. If the trademark registrar rejects an application on substantive grounds, applicants can appeal to the Board of Trademarks. If the board upholds the registrar’s decision, applicants can then pursue a civil suit with the Central Intellectual Property and International Trade Court (IP&IT Court) to revoke the trademark registrar’s and the board’s orders. Previous Regulations and Practice Historically, civil cases concerning trademark registrations followed standard procedures outlined in Thailand’s Civil Procedure Code, with specific adaptations for intellectual property matters under the Act for the Establishment of and Procedure for Intellectual Property and International Trade Court B.E. 2539 (1996). Proceedings entailed various stages, including settlement of issues, evidence hearing, and judgment hearing, culminating in the opportunity for appeal. New Regulations and Practice In 2023, a pivotal development emerged with the issuance of Regulation for Intellectual Property and International Trade Cases B.E. 2566 (2023). This regulatory update introduced section 18, which deals with cases related to the revocation or appeal of Board of Trademarks decisions, such as those concerning trademark nondistinctiveness or opposition cases against Thailand’s Department of Intellectual Property. Section 18 grants the IP&IT Court the authority to order parties to submit documents and evidence without the need for witness examination, thereby streamlining proceedings. Below is a comparison of the trademark procedures for cases related to the revocation or appeal of Board of Trademarks decisions: Traditional Approach Streamlined Approach Implementation and Implications In practice, the implementation of section 18 has significantly expedited the resolution of trademark disputes. This

Tilleke & Gibbins has been included in the recently announced shortlists for the 2024 Benchmark Litigation Asia Pacific Awards. The firm has been shortlisted for Vietnam Firm of the Year in recognition of its exceptional legal services and client-focused approach. In addition, Loc Xuan Le, a partner in Hanoi, has been named a finalist for Vietnam Lawyer of the Year. The nomination reflects Loc’s outstanding contributions to the legal field, his expertise, and his track record of guiding clients to successful outcomes over the past year. The Benchmark Litigation Awards spotlight the remarkable achievements of leading litigators and impactful legal disputes across the Asia-Pacific region. These awards are based on Benchmark Litigation’s rigorous research into the work, achievements, and client service of law firms in the region. The awards will be announced on May 21. For more information on the Benchmark Asia-Pacific Awards 2024 and to browse the full shortlist, please visit the Benchmark Litigation website.

Asian Legal Business has released its 2024 “Employer of Choice” rankings, and Tilleke & Gibbins has once again secured top honors as a premier employer in the legal sector in both Thailand and Vietnam. This marks the 12th consecutive year that the firm has been recognized as Employer of Choice in Thailand and the 10th time in Vietnam. In the article accompanying the list of leading employee-centric firms, Tilleke & Gibbins’ managing partners, Darani Vachanavuttivong and Tiziana Sucharitkul, shared their perspectives on what distinguishes the firm as an appealing and progressive workplace. Darani highlighted the firm’s commitment to fostering a supportive environment that promotes productivity and mental health, emphasizing the significance of transparency and open communication within the organization. Tiziana discussed the firm’s application of cutting-edge technologies like generative AI to enhance legal services and noted the importance of fostering a culture that celebrates diversity and inclusion. The Employer of Choice accolades recognize the most outstanding law firms to work for across the Asia-Pacific region. Rankings are determined through a comprehensive online survey involving law firm professionals at all levels, covering a spectrum of topics including job satisfaction, compensation, work-life balance, career advancement, mentoring, and more. Asian Legal Business is a trusted information source for businesses and professionals, owned by Thomson Reuters. To read more about the 2024 Employer of Choice recognitions, please see the April 2024 edition of Asian Legal Business.

Tilleke & Gibbins has been named a finalist in five categories at the SE Asia Law Awards 2024 from Asian Legal Business (ALB). The five categories include both regional accolades and country-specific firm-of-the-year awards: Southeast Asia Firm of the Year Regional IP Firm of the Year Regional Litigation Firm of the Year Thailand Firm of the Year Vietnam Firm of the Year These nominations reflect Tilleke & Gibbins’ strong reputation and performance in delivering business-focused legal services across Southeast Asia. The winners will be announced at a ceremony in Singapore on May 16. For more information and to view the complete list of finalists, please visit the SE Asia Law Awards 2024 Finalists page on the ALB website.

In-court arbitration is an alternative dispute resolution (ADR) tool provided in the Civil Procedure Code (CPC) for cases that have already been submitted to the court. Historically, in-court arbitration has not been a popular method of resolving disputes. Instead, out-of-court arbitration, as prescribed by the Thai Arbitration Act B.E. 2545 (2002), is far more utilized in practice. The popularity of out-of-court arbitration is demonstrated by the fact that presentations on arbitration in Thailand almost exclusively focus on out-of-court arbitration; in-court arbitration is rarely even a topic of discussion. This situation is partly because in-court arbitration has not been encouraged by the courts in the past. Further, it is also not common for parties to agree on arbitration clauses after a dispute arises and also after it has been submitted to the court. Instead, arbitration clauses are generally discussed and crafted during the negotiation of the contract, which will most likely provide that any dispute arising out of the contract is to be resolved by out-of-court arbitration. Nonetheless, the Thai Courts of Justice have recently started to support this in-court ADR tool as a viable option and to encourage parties to agree in-court arbitration clauses before proceeding with a case through trial. This article is not meant to assess whether in-court arbitration is preferable to either out-of-court arbitration or to having the case heard by professional judges of the Courts of Justice. Instead, the purpose of this article is to discuss certain key provisions of the CPC that parties should carefully consider before agreeing to an in-court arbitration clause. On this point, the CPC specifically states that out-of-court arbitration is prescribed by arbitration law, the Arbitration Act, which is an entirely separate piece of legislation drafted specifically to apply to out-of-court arbitration. In contrast, in-court arbitration is completely regulated by the CPC, not

Intellectual property rights holders pursuing legal actions in Vietnam have faced various challenges related to document formality in recent years. For example, in two different disputes at the Ho Chi Minh City Court, we have seen the judge request the claimants to re-prepare the civil dossier due to a lack of documentation proving the authorization of the signer—despite the fact that the cases had been ongoing for long time. Meanwhile, many domain names have been unable to be registered and transferred in recent months. Third-party representatives cannot handle the work as they normally would, as Vietnam’s domain name authority has required all documents to be signed by the domain name holders themselves, instead of the law firms representing them. Such demands have created unnecessary complexities and obstacles for IP holders seeking to protect their rights in Vietnam. Legal Formalities in the Court System Vietnam’s judicial landscape presents unique hurdles for IP holders to enforce their rights. One significant challenge is the requirement for the claimant’s legal representative (typically the CEO/president), as explicitly displayed on the company’s business license, to sign all documents related to a lawsuit. This requirement clashes with the operational practices of many foreign companies, where multiple individuals may have the authority to represent the company. It is extremely impractical, especially in a large multinational conglomerate, for the CEO/president to personally execute all documents and transactions. Instead, authorized staff within these organizations, such as department heads or general counsel, typically handle these tasks. In this situation, Vietnamese courts often demand additional documentation to prove the officers’ authority, necessitating specific authorization documents that may not always be readily available. The courts sometimes remain unconvinced by declarations from the CEO/president affirming the authorization of these officers, and despite such assurances, they may still demand tangible proof of authorization, adding layers of complexity for IP holders. Further,