A recent case at the Myanmar Competition Commission has set a significant precedent in the country’s approach to unfair competition practices. The case, involving a Thai manufacturer of cement grout and tile adhesive products and a local Myanmar producer, highlighted the Commission’s willingness to address issues of deceptive marketing and unfair competition. Background The case centered around a Thai manufacturer who has been distributing their cement grout and tile adhesive products in Myanmar for many years through local distribution agents. The company had established a well-known brand and a strong reputation for quality in the Myanmar market. In recent years, the Thai company discovered that a local individual in Myanmar was manufacturing and selling similar products with packaging nearly identical to their own. The local producer was using the same mark device, color, and packaging design themes, and the products contained deceptive information. Legal Proceedings After an initial cease-and-desist letter failed to resolve the issue, a complaint was submitted to the Myanmar Competition Commission. The case was notable because the Commission typically does not address issues of copying designs, marks, colors, or packaging themes. However, the complaint emphasized that the local individual was misleading customers and competing unfairly by using deceptive information and copying distinctive designs and themes. Lawyers from Tilleke & Gibbins, representing the Thai manufacturer, provided extensive documentation proving their client’s long-standing presence in the Myanmar market and the local individual’s deceptive practices. The Commission’s Investigation Committee conducted a thorough investigation, including market surveys and hearings involving both parties. Commission’s Decision After nearly a year of deliberation, on July 4, 2024, the Decision-Making Committee of the Myanmar Competition Commission ruled in favor of the Thai manufacturer. The decision required the local individual to: Immediately cease the production and distribution of cement grout and tile adhesive products bearing

Thailand has continued to face economic challenges since the COVID-19 pandemic, and some businesses have struggled to survive. One of most important measures that indebted businesses in Thailand can take is to file a business rehabilitation petition with the Bankruptcy Court. The Bankruptcy Act B.E. 2483 (1940) provides “automatic stay” measures to protect the debtors that have entered the business rehabilitation process, and during this time creditors have duties and rights under the Bankruptcy Act as well. Once Thailand’s Bankruptcy Court accepts a rehabilitation petition and issues an order for rehabilitation, the debtor is under this automatic stay protection against actions from the creditor to seek debt repayments, and the creditors are only allowed to pursue their debt repayments by submitting a debt repayment application to the official receiver within one month of publication of the plan preparer’s appointment in the Government Gazette. These are general conditions specified in the Bankruptcy Act. However, there are several practical precautions that are not specified in the Bankruptcy Act but that creditors should take during rehabilitation. Below are several steps creditors need to consider taking at various stages of the rehabilitation process. 1. Appointing a local Thai representative to act on behalf of the creditor in the rehabilitation The rehabilitation process requires much more than just submitting the debt repayment application within the fixed one-month period and then waiting for the result. It also involves contacting, meeting, and discussing with the official receiver, plan preparer, other creditors, or debtor representative to investigate or settle any arguments on the debt. Moreover, the language used in all the processes and documents is usually Thai. In practice, creditors—especially foreign creditors—should authorize a Thai attorney or representative through a valid power of attorney (POA) to represent them during all the rehabilitation proceedings. This includes the investigative

On the afternoon of 19 April 2024, a cramped courtroom at the People’s Court of Hanoi was the setting for the first criminal trial of a case of copyright and related rights infringement in Vietnam, regarding the act of illegal streaming of English Premier League football matches on online platforms. This case is expected to open the door for the criminal prosecution of other cases of copyright and related rights infringement on the internet, an area that has faced numerous difficulties over the past two decades. First criminal case of illegal streaming Vietnamese criminal law has long had provisions in place for criminal handling of copyright infringement crimes, specifically in Article 131 of the 1999 Penal Code. However, more than 20 years after this law took effect, and even though Vietnam enacted the 2015 Penal Code with subsequent amendments, these regulations have remained mainly a law on paper only, and many significant and serious cases causing great frustration for rights holders and society have not been criminally prosecuted. The case in question was initiated by a denunciation of the BestBuyIPTV subscription service by the Football Association Premier League Limited (the “Premier League”) and the Alliance for Creativity and Entertainment (“ACE”), a coalition of global entertainment companies and film studios dedicated to combating digital piracy and copyright infringement. BestBuyIPTV had illegally streamed Premier League matches and other protected works without authorization of the rights holders. In 2023, after an extensive investigation, the Cybersecurity and High-Tech Crime Prevention Division (PA05) and the Police Department for Investigating Corruption, Smuggling, and Economic Crimes (PC03) of the Hanoi police brought a case for criminal copyright infringement, pursuant to Article 225 of the 2015 Penal Code, against the offender, an individual named Le Hai Nam, consolidating the dossiers for the People’s Procuracy to indict this

Intellectual property specialists from Tilleke & Gibbins in Thailand have contributed an updated Intellectual Property Transactions in Thailand overview for Thomson Reuters Practical Law, an online publication that provides comprehensive legal guides for jurisdictions worldwide. The Thailand overview was authored by Darani Vachanavuttivong, managing partner of Tilleke & Gibbins and managing director of the firm’s regional IP practice; Titikaan Ungbhakorn, senior associate and patent agent; and San Chaithiraphant, senior associate. The chapter delivers a high-level examination of critical aspects of IP law, including IP assignment and licensing, research and development collaborations, IP in mergers and acquisitions (M&A), securing loans with intellectual property rights, settlement agreements, employee-related IP issues, competition law, taxation, and non-tariff trade barriers. Key topics covered in the chapter include: IP assignment: Basis and formalities for assignments of patents, utility models, trademarks, copyright, design rights, trade secrets, confidential information, and domain names. IP licensing: Scope and formalities for licensing patents, utility models, trademarks, copyright, design rights, and trade secrets. Research and development collaborations: Management of improvements, derivatives, and joint ownership of IP. IP aspects of M&A: Due diligence and critical considerations during mergers and acquisitions. Practical Law, a legal reference resource from Thomson Reuters, publishes a range of guides for hundreds of jurisdictions and practice areas. The Intellectual Property Transactions Global Guide is a valuable resource for legal practitioners, covering numerous jurisdictions worldwide. To view the latest version of the Intellectual Property Transactions in Thailand overview, please visit the Practical Law website and enroll in the free Practical Law trial to gain full access.