Tilleke & Gibbins has contributed the Thailand chapter to Shipping Law 2026 from the International Comparative Legal Guides (ICLG) series published by Global Legal Group. This comprehensive guide provides detailed legal analysis of shipping laws, regulatory frameworks, and maritime dispute resolution across key maritime jurisdictions worldwide. Each chapter follows a structured Q&A format, organized into critical sections covering key aspects of maritime law and practice, including: Marine casualties, collision liability, pollution regimes, salvage, and general average Marine cargo claims, statutory carrier obligations, liability limits, and misdeclaration of cargo Maritime passenger claims, personal injury liabilities, and consumer case procedures Vessel arrest, counter-security, provisional attachment, and maritime liens Evidence preservation, perpetuation procedures, and electronic document disclosure Court jurisdiction, specialized IP&IT litigation, arbitration, and alternative dispute resolution (ADR) Enforcement of foreign court judgments and arbitral awards under the New York Convention 1958 Offshore wind energy initiatives, regulatory permits, and cabotage restrictions Sector developments, including the Landbridge project and decarbonization trends The Thailand chapter, authored by Noppramart Thammateeradaycho and Panchaya Rattanaumnuaishai, examines these topics in detail, highlighting key statutory regimes such as the Carriage of Goods by Sea Act (COGSA), the Arrest of Ships Act, and the jurisdiction of the Central Intellectual Property and International Trade (IP&IT) Court. The complete Thailand chapter is available as a PDF below. The Thailand chapter—and the full Shipping Law 2026 guide—are also freely available on the ICLG website.

Thailand’s first-to-file trademark system has a serious vulnerability: it lacks both an explicit mechanism for refusing bad-faith registrations and any means of invalidating them in court after the five-year limitation period has expired. While brand owners worldwide confront trademark squatting, Thailand’s statutory silence stands out, particularly in light of AIPPI’s 2017 Resolution Q249, which recommended that every jurisdiction provide clear tools to address bad faith at all stages of the trademark lifecycle. Nearly a decade later, Thailand has yet to act. This article proposes a concrete reform blueprint, drawing on the legislative models of China, the United Kingdom, and the European Union. The Statutory Gap Under the Thai Trademark Act B.E. 2534, no provision expressly authorizes examiners to reject an application on grounds of bad faith. Section 8(10) addresses well-known marks but offers no relief where the targeted mark lacks well-known status. Practitioners have resorted to Section 8(9)—which bars marks “contrary to public order, morality, or public policy”—as a workaround. However, this provision was designed to address the characteristics of the mark itself, not the applicant’s intent. Thai Supreme Court decisions have split on whether it can reach bad-faith conduct, creating persistent legal uncertainty. The gap extends beyond examination. Civil actions to cancel a bad-faith registration must be brought within five years—a deadline that frequently expires before foreign brand owners discover the squatted mark. Cancellation through the Board of Trademarks remains available but is slow, costly, and subject to court appeal, leaving bad-faith registrations in force during protracted proceedings. The system effectively rewards squatters and penalizes legitimate owners. Lessons from International Best Practices Several major jurisdictions have already closed this gap. China’s 2019 amendment to Article 4 of the Trademark Law introduced an absolute ground for refusal: “bad faith trademark applications without intent to use shall be rejected.” Bad

In August 2026, Vietnam’s Ministry of Industry and Trade released a draft decree to replace Decree No. 35/2020/ND-CP detailing certain articles of the Competition Law (Decree 35). The key changes under the draft decree and their implications for M&A transactions in Vietnam are summarized below. Definition of “Management Body” Decree 35 uses the term “management body” (bộ phận điều hành) as one of the criteria to determine the group of affiliated enterprises for the purpose of merger filing. However, there is no definition of the term, leaving enterprises without a basis on which to apply it consistently. The draft decree introduces a statutory definition of “management body,” being a person or group of persons who (i) own more than 50% of charter capital or voting shares; (ii) hold ownership or use rights over more than 50% of an enterprise’s assets; (iii) are an enterprise manager under enterprise law; or (iv) have decision-making power over the enterprise’s resolutions, daily business operations, or business and investment plans. This helps enterprises better assess the scope of merger filing. Determination of Relevant Product Market Under Decree 35, the relevant product market is defined solely by reference to goods and services interchangeable in characteristics, intended use, and price without accommodating digital or zero-price products. The draft decree expands the relevant product market to include “products” (sản phẩm) in addition to traditional “goods and services,” which captures digital information products, AI products, and other novel offerings. Additionally, it adds “other relevant competitive factors” such as quality of products, goods, and services for determining the relevant product market, supplementing the existing factors of characteristics, intended use, and price. This addresses cases where price substitutability is not meaningful for certain consumers or users, i.e., zero-price products. Determination of Relevant Geographic Market Under Decree 35, only physical geographic

The Myanmar Investment Commission (MIC) has issued a notification that gives investors with projects in Myanmar clearer guidance for securing approval and for changing, expanding, or exiting an approved project. Issued on August 19, 2026, MIC Notification No. 5/2026 replaces MIC Notification No. 26/2021 and sets procedures for state or regional investment committees to review, approve, and supervise investment projects, including project amendments, investment increases, land-use rights applications, compliance inspections, and suspension or termination of approved businesses. Endorsement Application Timeline and Deemed Acceptance In Myanmar, prospective investors seeking approval under the Myanmar Investment Law generally do so through an MIC permit or an MIC endorsement, depending on the nature of the investment. While certain large-scale investment projects require an MIC permit, projects that are not required to obtain an MIC permit may instead apply for an MIC endorsement. Investors seeking MIC endorsement for their planned projects typically submit their applications to the relevant state or regional investment committee. These committees are established under the Myanmar Investment Law and are authorized to approve investments of less than USD 5 million, subject to the project’s nature and location. MIC Notification No. 5/2026 specifies that upon receiving an endorsement application, the relevant investment committee office will check it for completeness and determine whether it can be considered at the state or regional level or must be referred to the MIC; if it must be forwarded to the MIC, this will be done within 10 working days. If an application is within its purview, the committee may reject the endorsement application within 15 working days of receipt; otherwise, the application is deemed accepted. If approved, the endorsement certificate will be issued within 10 working days of the approval decision, subject to applicable procedures. Endorsement Certificate Amendment The notification clarifies which amendments a state