You are using an outdated browser and your browsing experience will not be optimal. Please update to the latest version of Microsoft Edge, Google Chrome or Mozilla Firefox. Install Microsoft Edge

February 21, 2012

European Union Integration and IP: Lessons for the AEC

Subscribe to Updates
Informed Counsel

As AEC integration moves closer, the EU and ASEAN are becoming increasingly similar. What follows are some of the key points regarding integration and IP as experienced in the EU, and the lessons they provide for governments and IP owners in ASEAN.

Q: The European Community Trademark and the system under the European Patent Convention allow for Europe-wide protection for these types of IP. What key lessons could the AEC take from the EU’s past experiences?

Importantly, the European systems in place are designed to make it easier to obtain IP protection across the whole of Europe. This was needed because goods (and people, capital, and services) can move freely around Europe and so IP protection in all European countries became essential. While ASEAN is not going to go quite as far as totally free movement of goods, rights holders need to be aware that due to the increase in the movement of all types of goods around ASEAN and also coming in to ASEAN countries, obtaining IP protection in all ASEAN countries will become more important. ASEAN’s 2010 trade figures published on its website (aseansec.org) show that 26% of trade is between ASEAN countries, with China second (11% of ASEAN trade) and Europe third (10%). Therefore, it is not just outside investors that will experience an increase in the movement of goods as ASEAN progresses; it will be primarily the ASEAN countries.

Also, there is no doubt that ASEAN will experience an increase in the number of goods in transit. Each country will have to ensure that its IP laws are clear in relation to the duties of Customs and other authorities to seize infringing goods. Europe is still developing these laws, and in 2011 the Court of Justice of the European Union (CJEU) gave a decision regarding goods in transit en route outside of the EU—generally they cannot be seized unless there is suspicious information on the Customs application form. This shows that the EU’s “single market” laws are still evolving.

The Roadmap for an ASEAN Community provides for an integration of Customs departments from country to country. The term used is an “ASEAN Single Window.” This will mean that IP owners must ensure that their trademark registrations and customs recordals are all up to date in the coming years.

Q: Is IP law the same in all European countries?

No. European law operates at a level such that the laws of each individual European Union member country must comply with the European Directives—a required minimum. This means that not all countries enact the same wording or degree or clarity of legislation. National courts also have their own rules and procedures. The CJEU hears cases that have been referred to it by the national courts of each member country. For example, a German patent court may ask the CJEU how to interpret a certain IP law.

If the AEC is to work well, there should be arguably a high degree of alignment of IP laws across the region. As to whether there needs to be an ASEAN court, it would probably not be required until ASEAN, as a legal body, is creating its own laws. However, certain countries are likely to have differences in their IP laws. Moving forward, those countries with more robust patent systems are likely to attract greater investment. Notwithstanding that one of ASEAN’s objectives is freer movement of capital and investment, if the patent protection is weak in a certain country, the investment may not follow. Such issues may undermine the ASEAN Investment Guarantee Agreement (IGA), depending on how the IGA develops in the future.

The ASEAN Economic Chartbook 2010 (cumulative figures for 2004–2009) shows that the EU leads foreign direct investment into ASEAN with 24.5%, followed by Japan (14%), ASEAN (13.3%), the United States (9.2%), and China (percentage not disclosed).

Q: How does having one European Economic Area affect the rights holder and the consumer?

Goods, once placed on the market by the IP rights holder, are then free to move anywhere. This means prices become almost identical, or are driven down, across the region for the same good, assuming it is easily movable, because the IP holder cannot restrict sales territory. A recent case involving territorial exclusivity of a television broadcast in Europe (of football matches) heard by the CJEU stated that individuals across Europe were free to buy whatever decoder they liked (e.g., the cheapest) and not just the one offered in their country by the company that seemingly had territorial exclusivity. That type of exclusivity does not exist in Europe. The flipside is that for most goods, it will increase the market size considerably as the brand or product becomes available to more people.

As most ASEAN trade is intra-ASEAN, the ASEAN countries should see progressive increases in such trade. Therefore, it is expected that ASEAN brands and technology will become regional in nature, quite quickly. Tourism is an important industry for ASEAN and so hotel chains may well spread geographically across the region, particularly bearing in mind the increase in the freedom of movement of people within ASEAN for nationals of member states.

In summary, and to reiterate, ASEAN-wide IP protection will be vital to any business, whether from overseas or from within ASEAN. Companies will have to develop international IP filing strategies if they are to attract investment or expand overseas, within ASEAN and beyond.

Download Full Article
Related Professionals

Practices

Intellectual Property

Location

RELATED INSIGHTS​ 

July 27, 2026
Vietnam’s new E-Commerce Law, which took effect on 1 July 2026 along with its implementing Decree No. 248/2026/ND-CP (Decree 248), marks a significant development in the country’s approach to online intellectual property (IP) enforcement, reflecting a clear shift from a reactive model of intermediary liability to one that expects platforms to play a more active role in preventing infringement. From notice-and-takedown to platform responsibility The most significant change introduced by the E-Commerce Law is the transformation of the legal role of e-commerce platforms. The existing safe harbor provisions under the IP Law and the copyright notice-and-takedown regime established by Decree 17/2023/ND-CP (Decree 17) largely required intermediaries to act only after receiving notice of infringement. Once infringing content had been removed, the platform’s legal obligation was generally considered fulfilled. The new legislation adopts a fundamentally different approach. Article 17 of the E-Commerce Law requires intermediary platforms to screen information relating to goods and services before publication in order to prevent listings involving counterfeit or IP-infringing goods, and goods of unknown origin. Rather than relying exclusively on complaints from rights holders, platforms are now expected to implement preventive measures before infringing listings become publicly available. Decree 248 further requires platforms to update keyword filters based on recommendations issued by competent authorities. These filtering mechanisms are intended to prevent prohibited listings from appearing on the platform and represent a further move away from a purely complaint-driven enforcement model. The legislation also introduces Vietnam’s first statutory stay-down obligation. Under the E-Commerce Law and Decree 248, major digital platforms must maintain automated systems capable of reviewing, warning against, and removing unlawful listings while also implementing measures to prevent repeat violations, defined under Decree 248 as conduct that has previously been identified and handled by the platform, but continues to recur. This obligation addresses one
Read More
July 27, 2026
Tilleke & Gibbins’ intellectual property specialists have authored the Thailand chapter of Trade Secrets 2026 from Chambers and Partners. This global guide examines the legal frameworks governing trade secret protection, enforcement, and litigation across jurisdictions worldwide. The Thailand chapter provides a comprehensive overview of the country’s legal regime for protecting confidential business information, covering the legal framework, trade secret misappropriation, litigation procedures, remedies, and dispute resolution. Some topics covered include: Protectable trade secrets Reasonable measures to maintain secrecy Employee confidentiality Trade secret licensing Civil and criminal remedies Litigation procedures and injunctions Damages and other remedies Mediation and arbitration The guide also examines practical issues relating to safeguarding trade secrets, defending against allegations of misappropriation, and managing trade secret disputes in Thailand. Chambers and Partners’ Global Practice Guides provide in-house counsel with authoritative commentary on practical legal issues affecting business, enabling readers to compare legislation and procedures across multiple jurisdictions. The Thailand chapter of Trade Secrets 2026 is available as a PDF through the button below. The full guide can be accessed for free on the Chambers and Partners website.
Read More
July 27, 2026
In March 2025, Thailand’s Central Intellectual Property and International Trade Court (IP&IT Court) issued a landmark judgment in favor of Luckin Coffee, China’s leading retail coffee chain. The judgment marked a significant turnaround following earlier trademark litigation involving Luckin Coffee from 2021 to 2023 that had generated widespread public attention and raised questions about the protection available to legitimate foreign brand owners in Thailand. In a significant subsequent development, Thailand’s Court of Appeal for Specialized Cases has now affirmed the IP&IT Court’s judgment in its entirety. The appellate decision brings clarity to one of Thailand’s most closely watched trademark disputes. Significantly, this is the first case in Thailand to formally recognize the trademark squatting principle. The Court of Appeal confirmed that Luckin Coffee has a better right to the disputed mark and ordered cancellation of the defendants’ trademark registration—a key application of the “better right” doctrine. The court also upheld the substantial damages awarded at first instance, providing important guidance on assessing harm from systematic trademark squatting. Award-Winning Judgment Affirmed in Its Entirety The significance of the first-instance judgment extended beyond the outcome for Luckin Coffee. The IP&IT Court judgment was subsequently recognized in the IP&IT Court’s Distinguished Judgment Awards in 2025, reflecting the complexity, novelty, and legal significance of the issues considered in the case. The defendants nevertheless appealed the judgment, challenging several key aspects of the IP&IT Court’s decision. Luckin Coffee continued to entrust Tilleke & Gibbins as their sole attorney to pursue the case at the appellate level. After considering the defendants’ appeal and Luckin Coffee’s submissions in response, the Court of Appeal affirmed the first-instance judgment in its entirety. The judgment was announced on July 8, 2026. Better Right to the Marks The Court of Appeal confirmed Luckin Coffee’s superior rights. The orders include cancellation
Read More
July 24, 2026
As food innovation continues to accelerate, manufacturers are increasingly introducing ingredients derived from new sources, produced using novel technologies, or lacking a significant history of human consumption. While these innovations create new opportunities for the food industry, they also raise important questions regarding consumer safety. For this reason, many jurisdictions, including Thailand, the European Union, Australia and New Zealand, Canada, and Singapore, require a premarket safety assessment for novel food ingredients before they can be placed on the market. The objective of this assessment is to ensure that each ingredient is safe for its intended use and level of consumption, does not present toxicological, allergenic, microbiological, or nutritional concerns, and will not mislead consumers. Scientific authorities typically evaluate the ingredient’s identity, manufacturing process, composition, specifications, anticipated dietary exposure, toxicological information, nutritional impact, and history of use before determining whether it can be marketed. Against this background, the Thai Food and Drug Administration (FDA) recently took an important step toward improving regulatory transparency by publishing, for the first time, a consolidated public list of substances that have successfully completed the Thai FDA’s safety assessment process, including substances determined to be novel foods and those determined not to fall within the novel food category. The list identifies the approved substances, the corresponding manufacturers or importers, approval dates, and the approved conditions of use. Although the publication does not change the existing legal framework governing novel food approvals, it provides businesses with greater visibility into the Thai FDA’s regulatory precedents and the types of substances that have previously been accepted through the safety assessment process. The full announcement is available on the Thai FDA’s website. As the list is now publicly available, it also provides useful insight into the types of substances that have successfully completed the Thai FDA’s safety assessment process.
Read More