On October 28, 2024, Indonesia officially amended its existing Patent Law when the president ratified Law Number 65 of 2024. This comprehensive update—the third such amendment in the history of Indonesia’s Patent Law—introduces several key changes that will significantly impact patent protection and application processes in Indonesia. Key highlights and changes are outlined below. Definition of Invention The new law broadens the definition of “invention” to explicitly include systems, methods, and uses. Additionally, the law introduces formal definitions for traditional knowledge and genetic resources. Patentability Criteria Notable changes include: Computer programs are now excluded, with an exception for computer-implemented inventions. Theories and methods in science and mathematics are added to the list of excluded inventions. Previous restrictions on new uses of existing products are removed. Grace Periods The grace periods for some patent-related actions have been adjusted: The grace period for disclosures has been extended to 12 months (from 6 months previously), providing inventors with more flexibility in filing patent applications after initial disclosure. A newly introduced item is the grace period for a conventional patent application claiming priority rights, which is 4 months after the 12-month filing deadline under the Paris Convention. The grace period for annuity payments is 6 months (from 12 months previously) with a fine for late payments of 100% of the annual fee payable. Patent Holder Rights and Obligations Patent holders can now grant permissions to enforce patents. There is a new requirement for patent holders to submit annual statements on patent implementation in Indonesia. Compulsory Licensing Significant changes to compulsory licensing include: Establishment of licenses based on the principle of expediency. Limitations on license scope and transferability. Prioritization of domestic market needs. New provisions for technical improvements and economic significance. Government Patent Exploitation The new law contains specific provisions for the government’s implementation

Trademark registration for marks composed of combinations of Roman letters and/or Arabic numerals has long been challenging in Thailand, particularly for those that are neither stylised nor pronounceable. There have been conflicting perspectives regarding the interpretation of “invented letter(s) and numeral(s)” under Section 7 of the Thai Trademark Act. The Department of Intellectual Property (DIP) has considered that letters and numerals must feature notable visual enhancements to be inherently distinctive, and “invented” must be in the form of stylisation, such as overlapping or interlocking letters, or intricate designs like traditional Thai oral patterns or geometric motifs. Some examples of acceptable letter and numeral marks according to the DIP The courts, however, have consistently recognised that three-letter marks, even when presented without stylisation, can be inherently distinctive. The rationale is that these marks, viewed as random and unusual combinations, can in many cases be distinguishable from common words and sufficient for the public to identify the associated goods/services, and distinguish them from others. Following Supreme Court precedents on registrability, the DIP officially updated its Examination Guidelines in January 2022 to recognise that combinations of three or more letters, even if not stylised or forming pronounceable words, can be deemed inherently distinctive. Challenges persist, however, for two-letter marks, which still face significant obstacles in achieving registrability. The JD case Background Beijing Jing Dong 360 Du E-Commerce, one of China’s largest e-commerce companies, led trademark applications for the marks JD.COM (and device) and JD.CO.TH (and device) for services in Class 35 related to advertising and business management: The registrar rejected the applications, citing insufficient stylisation of ‘JD’ and describing ‘.com’ and ‘.co.th’ as common descriptive terms. The applicant appealed to the Board of Trademarks, which upheld the refusal, echoing the registrar’s reasoning and asserting that the marks were devoid of inherent distinctiveness

Vietnam’s new Decree No. 147/2024/ND-CP on the management, provision, and use of internet services and online information (“Decree 147”), which will come into effect on December 25, 2024, replacing Decree No. 72/2013/ND-CP (“Decree 72”), introduces several changes to the regime for domain name dispute resolution. The new decree aims to clarify the legal framework and address some longstanding inconsistencies between Vietnam’s laws on intellectual property and information technology. The main changes related to domain name dispute resolution under Decree 147 are summarized below. Removal of Prescriptive Actions Decree 147 no longer lists specific actions for resolving domain name disputes. Decree 72 had outlined three methods: negotiation/mediation, arbitration, and court. However, IP practitioners had long criticized this approach, arguing it conflicted with the IP Law, which additionally allows administrative action. By omitting these methods, the new decree implies an acceptance of administrative action as provided in the IP Law. However, Decree 147 remains silent on establishing a dispute resolution forum aligned with the CPTPP’s requirement for a UDRP-like model. Currently, Vietnam’s available forums do not fully conform to the UDRP framework. An anticipated circular may provide further guidance on this aspect. Deactivation of Domain Names Decree 72 does not have any provision on the deactivation of a domain name. However, Decree 147 has stipulated some situations where domain names will be deactivated, such as when there is a request from an authority, or when it is discovered that incorrect information was used for registration. Clearer Criteria for Dispute Resolution Article 16 of Decree 147 sets out three clear criteria that must be met for domain name dispute resolution to proceed: (i) confusing similarity with the plaintiff’s trademark, trade name, or personal name; (ii) the defendant’s lack of legitimate rights or interests in the domain name; and (iii) bad faith. Previously,