On July 1, 2022, Myanmar’s Ministry of Commerce issued Notification No. 44/2022, which specifies forms for filings under the 2019 Trademark Law. While the “soft opening” period of Myanmar’s Intellectual Property Department (IPD) is approaching two years and the date of the full opening is still undetermined, this new notification is a substantial development and can be considered progress pointing toward full implementation of the Trademark Law. The notification came with an annex describing the following 19 forms (issued in both Myanmar and English language on the IPD website): Application for Registration of a Mark Appointment of a Representative Request for Reinstatement of an Application Request for Correction of an Application Request for Withdrawal of an Application Request to Limit the List of Goods or Services in an Application Request to Divide an Application Opposition to Registration of a Mark Request to Issue Certified Copies of a Registration Certificate Request for Amendment of Registration of a Mark Request for Renewal of Registration of a Mark Request for Recordation of Transfer of Registration of a Mark Request for Recordation of a License of a Registered Mark Request to Cancel Recordation of a License of a Registered Mark Request for Invalidation of a Registered Mark Request for Cancellation of a Registered Mark Request to Change the Representative Request for Time Extension Application for Appeal The annex provides detailed requirements for each form corresponding to a particular request described in the Trademark Law. However, use and submission of the forms will need to wait for further procedural guidance from the IPD. Now that the authority has issued the forms for matters under the Trademark Law, the next step will be the announcement of fees for each action, after which the IPD will be ready to enter the second phase of its soft

What does “digital health” include within each jurisdiction? Thailand: For the most part, the idea of “digital health” or “telemedicine” has generally fallen within the area of medical device regulation in Thailand. The normal sort of digital health components you would think of—like software and device accessories for diagnosis, monitoring, prevention, or treatment of illnesses—would fall into medical device classification, so long as they do not achieve their intended function by immunological, metabolic, or pharmacological means. The “digital health” devices you commonly think of, like mobile medical apps, wearable technologies and software, fall mainly within this definition. After the last update to the Medical Device Act in 2008, Thailand next looked at digital health in 2019, with the Personal Data Protection Act (PDPA)—which is largely aligned with GDPR principles—and the Cybersecurity Act. These deal with important issues arising from “digital health” and “telemedicine” like personal data protection, consent to use and consent to transfer data, and privacy. Vietnam: Similarly, in Vietnam, while there’s not a clear definition of “digital health” in the law, it is understood to include various types of medical devices, software, and online services used for healthcare purposes—including diagnosis and treatment as well as medical records and telemedicine. There’s no law on digital health, per se, but many of these areas are covered by separate circulars issued by the Ministry of Health. There’s a circular (referred to as “Circular 49”) from late 2017 on telemedicine, for example, that actually uses the term “telemedicine” to identify the industry and sets out licensing and technical requirements. Indicators such as this show that Vietnam is definitely embracing the concept. Indonesia: In Indonesia, there is also no precise definition of “digital health.” Digital health is regulated under several laws and regulations, such as provisions concerning medical devices under the health

Observers in Vietnam were recently captivated by a trademark application filed by a famous singer, Truong Trieu Truc Lan (also known as Nathan Lee), for the mark “CAO THAI SON” for “real estate services” in Class 36, “entertainment and stage performances” in Class 41 and “restaurant services” in Class 43. “Cao Thai Son” is the real name of another famous Vietnamese singer. The application astonished the community not only due to Nathan Lee’s attempt to register another person’s name, but also because Nathan Lee and Cao Thai Son have a longtime rivalry, and after buying copyrights to many of Cao Thai Son’s hit songs, Nathan Lee’s registration of his rival’s own name has obviously deepened the animosity between the two. If this mark is exclusively granted to Nathan Lee, Cao Thai Son’s fans are worried that their idol could no longer use his own name in his performing career due to risks of trademark infringement. Their concern is not groundless in the context that protection of trademarks in Vietnam mostly depends on registration. Rights to non-registered objects, even well-known marks, are still rather difficult to obtain and enforce. However, the right to an individual’s name is a moral right, which cannot be bought, sold, transferred between living people, or inherited. Article 26 of Vietnam’s Civil Code affirms that individuals “have the right to have a full name (including a middle name, if any) … determined by the person’s first and last name at birth,” and that they “establish and perform civil rights and obligations according to their surname and name.” Thus, Cao Thai Son, as an individual, has the right to use his name in civil transactions. He can also use his name in his performances, regardless of whether the trademark “CAO THAI SON” is granted to Nathan Lee,

Before the issuance in late 2019 of the Trade Competition Commission of Thailand’s Guidelines on Unfair Trade Practices in Franchise Businesses, which took effect in February 2020, Thai law made little mention of franchising as a business model—despite the great popularity of franchising in the country. The guidelines, which were issued under the Trade Competition Act B.E. 2560 (2017), partly made up for the absence of a single, codified franchising law in the country and offered valuable direction on how franchisors and franchisees should operate in compliance with Thai law. One of the most significant conditions introduced by the original guidelines in February 2020 was a requirement for franchisors to provide a right of first refusal to their existing franchisees before opening a new franchise outlet within current franchisees’ operating vicinity. An update to the guidelines addressing the right of first refusal was issued in August 2020. Most recently, a second update was announced on July 13, 2021. It was published in the Government Gazette on August 19, 2021, and came into force on the following day. The August 2021 update further revised this provision, and the updated guidelines now adopt a less restrictive approach for franchisors in relation to this first-refusal requirement. Under the updated guidelines, a franchisor who decides to open a new outlet, whether it will be operated by the franchisor or by another franchisee or person, must notify the existing franchisee located in closest proximity to the intended location, and provide the franchisee with a right of first refusal for a period of 30 days. However, the franchisor does not have to provide the closest franchisee with a right of first refusal if the franchisee’s existing performance does not meet the franchisor’s criteria as specified and communicated to the franchisee in advance. In determining what