Under the Thai Government’s latest Covid-19 prevention measures, private companies and government entities in the Bangkok Metropolitan Area and adjacent provinces must implement strict work-from-home measures for 14 days, with very limited exceptions, from July 20 to August 3 (subject to extension). During this period, the Thai Department of Intellectual Property (DIP) will temporarily close its physical receiving office and implement 100% online filing for all types of applications and requests. In anticipation of a surge in use of the online filing system, the DIP will upgrade its IT infrastructure from 5.00 p.m. on Friday, July 23, to 4.00 a.m. of Tuesday, July 27 (note that July 26 is a government holiday), during which time the system will be offline. This means neither online nor physical filings will be accepted during this period. The DIP has not allowed extensions of time for due dates of trademark applications falling during this period. If you have a due date that will fall within this period (including deadlines for responding to provisional refusals of International Trademark Registrations) please make sure to reach out to us by this Thursday, July 22, to ensure that your deadlines will be met. While exceptions for late submissions caused by the government measures may be available, requests for such exceptions must be made in writing and accompanied by evidence, and will be granted or declined based on the Registrar’s final discretion. As such it is not recommended to rely on such exceptions unless absolutely necessary. For more information, please contact Tilleke & Gibbins on +66 2056 5555 or [email protected].

With the rapid growth of internet use and the increasing dominance of online selling, efficient enforcement of intellectual property rights has become more cumbersome for brand owners. Any infringer equipped with the right technology can easily sell counterfeit goods on e-commerce platforms, and they can often evade responsibility by merely reposting listings or switching vendor names whenever they are challenged. In this environment, brand owners have found that it is rarely enough to simply request the takedown of infringing pages. Instead, tackling online infringement effectively and stopping the spread of counterfeit products means uncovering the true source, arresting the infringer, and seizing the goods to prevent them from being relisted entirely. Panasonic’s Success When the Japanese multinational electronics maker Panasonic discovered that fake batteries were being sold in Thailand through e-commerce websites, their first step was to send takedown requests to the platforms hosting the offending pages. However, the problem remained, with several of the counterfeit retailers shifting their advertising of counterfeit Panasonic goods to other posts. Tilleke & Gibbins thus helped Panasonic attack the problem at its root by seeking to uncover the true identity of the online sellers. We confirmed that the same infringing sellers were continuing to post counterfeit Panasonic items for sale, and during a preliminary investigation, we discovered that five online sellers even shared the same shipping address. Unsurprisingly, the address was a fake as well—our investigation team found that the given location had nothing to do with the Panasonic counterfeiting operation, and further investigation was required before the team found the hidden location of the real warehouse. We then shared the results of our investigation with the Economic Crime Suppression Division (ECD) of the Royal Thai Police to alert them to the true identity and address of the online infringer, and coordinated with

Vietnam issued a draft decree on the sanctioning of administrative violations in industrial property, aimed at bringing regulations in line with the newly amended Law on Handling Administrative Violations scheduled to take effect on January 1, 2022.

In January of 2017 the Computer Crimes Act, B.E 2550 (CCA) was amended, providing, amongst other things, additional detail on computer data classifications that justify orders to suspend online dissemination of content. With the additional clarity provided in the 2017 amendments, the Ministry of Digital Economy and Society of Thailand began more actively pursuing online content that it considered to be in violation of the CCA or to be compromising Thai national security as provided in the Penal Code. As a result, the number of court orders issued to suspend the dissemination of online content has risen significantly over the past few years. At the same time as this escalation of court orders to take-down or otherwise remove certain online content, there had been little or no attempt to challenge such orders, largely due to the fact that orders are issued on an ex-parte basis and because of an absence of any clear method to appeal provided in the CCA. It was not until October of 2020, more than three years after the CCA amendments, that the public learned for the first time that a challenge to a previously issued court order for the takedown of content was successfully made. In such case, the court accepted a petition in opposition to the court takedown order and scheduled an additional hearing, ruling it proper to re-conduct the hearing and giving both parties the opportunity to provide the court with full information to decide on the challenge. While this was good news for the content providers and users in this case, the court, nonetheless, failed to provide specific criteria on what would justify a court ordering an opposition hearing or on when it would allow an opposition to even be filed with the court. In February of 2021 a second challenge