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 20, 2012

Implications of the AEC in the IP Field

Subscribe to Updates
Informed Counsel

While it is expected that the AEC harmonization will significantly boost the region’s economy and attract greater foreign investment, the harmonization will also undoubtedly present a host of challenges for the ASEAN nations to address. Among the key challenges posed by integration, ASEAN member states will need to implement an effective system for the protection and enforcement of intellectual property within the AEC.

Although the development of intellectual property laws and enforcement mechanisms differ from one member state to another, ASEAN recognizes the importance of effective IP policy, which must be consistently implemented in all member states.

Therefore, ASEAN adopted the Intellectual Property Rights Action Plan (IPR Action Plan), which provides a framework for establishing effective IP policy in the region.

The first phase of the IPR Action Plan (from 2004 to 2010) was aimed at: (1) helping to accelerate the pace and scope of IP creation and commercialization, both inside and outside ASEAN; (2) developing and harmonizing IPR registration and protection and setting up an enforcement framework of policies and institutions in the region; and (3) promoting greater public awareness and building up human resources and institutions relating to IP and IPRs within ASEAN.

The second phase of the IPR Action Plan (from 2011 to 2015) builds on the completion of the first IPR Action Plan (2004–2010), and further takes into account the differing capacities of the member states. It is aimed at transforming ASEAN into an innovative and competitive region through the use of IP. Five strategic goals were identified in the second IPR Action Plan (2011–2015):

  1. A balanced IP system that takes into account the varying levels of development of member states, and the differences in the institutional capacity of national IP Offices, to enable them to deliver timely, quality, and accessible IP services and to promote the region as being conducive to the needs of users and generators of IP.
  2. Development of national or regional legal and policy infrastructures that address the evolving demands of the IP landscape and facilitate the participation of ASEAN member states in global IP systems at the appropriate time.
  3. Advancement of the interests of the region through the systematic promotion of IP creation, awareness, and utilization, to ensure that IP becomes a tool for innovation and development; support for the transfer of technology to promote access to knowledge; and consideration for the preservation and protection of indigenous products and services, and the works of their creative people in the region.
  4. Active regional participation in the international IP community, with closer relationships with dialogue partners and institutions to develop the capacity of member states and to address the needs of stakeholders in the region.
  5. Intensified cooperation among ASEAN member states, and increased levels of collaboration among them, to enhance the human and institutional capacity of IP Offices in the region.

In light of this, significant improvements can be expected in the IP field within the next few years. For each type of IP, the AEC harmonization may have several implications in regard to protection, utilization, and enforcement of an IP asset. In particular, the implications in regard to trademarks, patents, and copyrights would likely have the largest impact on businesses in the region. Each of these is discussed in detail below.

Trademark

At present, there is great regional disparity among ASEAN members with regard to trademark protection and enforcement. While every ASEAN nation provides some form of trademark protection, Myanmar, for example, does not have a formal trademark act. On the contrary, Thailand has a well-developed trademark law, and a national trademark office that regulates and oversees trademark registration.

Furthermore, disparity also exists in terms of trademark enforcement mechanisms and court procedures, which vary from one country to another. In view of the AEC harmonization, this disparity will have to be dealt with effectively, in order to ensure uniformity within the region, which needs to operate as a single market and production base.

The AEC harmonization plan for trademarks will be based primarily on the Protocol Relating to the Madrid Agreement Concerning the International Registration of Marks, or the “Madrid Protocol,” which is an existing system for the international registration of trademarks. Unlike the EU model, ASEAN’s integration plan for trademarks does not include a Community Trademark (CTM) scheme, which is currently employed by the EU. The AEC will take advantage of the Madrid Protocol, which provides a cost-effective and efficient means for trademark owners to obtain protection for their marks in multiple countries, through the filing of one application with a single trademark office, in one language, and with one set of fees. The Madrid Protocol also simplifies the subsequent maintenance of trademark registrations in the designated countries.

According to the IPR Action Plan, ASEAN members are required to accede to the Madrid Protocol by 2015. At present, only Singapore and Vietnam are members of the Madrid Protocol. Thailand has been working toward accession for several years, and is expected to join by 2015. Thus, when the AEC is fully established, companies will be able to enjoy the benefits of the Madrid Protocol, thus enabling them to manage their marks more effectively throughout the region.

In addition to accession to the Madrid Protocol, the AEC also aims to expedite the trademark registration process in its member states, build up capacity and raise awareness in regard to trademarks, suppress the movement of counterfeit goods, and enhance cooperation against counterfeits. Enforcement procedures and mechanisms will likely be improved across the region, thereby enabling trademark owners to protect their marks more effectively.

Patent

Importantly, the AEC envisions that all countries will become members of the Patent Cooperation Treaty (PCT) by 2015. Currently, Brunei Darussalam, Cambodia, Laos, and Myanmar are not yet members. Member states are charged with the responsibility to issue appropriate guidelines for PCT implementation in their country, and to amend any relevant legislation. The use of the PCT by stakeholders is to be encouraged by the member states.

One key facet of the AEC harmonization is widespread implementation of the ASEAN Patent Search and Examination Cooperation (ASPEC) system. It is hoped that the system will be fully operational by 2012, and will be used for 5% of all patent applications by 2012. Other plans include the establishment of a regional network of at least 20 regional patent libraries to increase access to global scientific and technology information.

In regard to design patents, the AEC sets forth an ambitious goal whereby seven member states are to accede to the Hague Agreement Concerning the International Registration of Industrial Designs by 2015. So far, among member states, only Singapore is a member. Each country is to develop a road map for accession, and amend or issue new legislation as needed to implement this convention.

Other goals of the AEC relate to capacity building for the patent offices of member states. In this regard, under the umbrella of the AEC program, various training programs in law and procedures for patent examiners will be implemented, with emphasis being placed on following the procedures of the highly efficient patent offices in the region. One highlight of this initiative is an exchange programme for patent examiners among patent offices. Specific trainings on design patent issues are also prescribed under the AEC. In regard to plant variety protection, Singapore and Vietnam, which have adopted the International Union for the Protection of New Varieties of Plants (UPOV), are expected to share their experience to help other member states bring their plant variety protection regimes up to international standards.

Copyright

The AEC prescribes that member states will undertake studies on the contributions to the economy of copyright industries and toward economic development. The results are to be shared, with the goal of more effective use of copyright by the members. In this regard, best practices regarding copyright and recordation will be shared among members. Thailand is taking the lead under the AEC in sharing information on how to build and operate collecting societies for effective use of copyright. Initiatives on building linkages between collecting societies in various countries will be launched under the AEC, with the goal of achieving regional cooperation on copyright.

In a humanitarian step, the AEC dictates that each member state’s copyright laws should contain special exceptions for impaired or disabled persons, and urges members to take a collective stand on this point.

Conclusion

The AEC sets forth a broad, well-conceived framework for regional cooperation in many areas of intellectual property. The framework goals, if met, will not only improve regional cooperation, but will reach harmonization on some legal facets of intellectual property and will help to bring many IP regimes up to best practice international standards. This will allow stakeholders in the member states to better capitalize on their untapped intellectual property assets.

Download Full Article
Related Professionals

Practices

Intellectual Property

Locations

RELATED INSIGHTS​ 

September 14, 2026
Myanmar’s first-to-file trademark registration regime under the Trademark Law 2019—which became fully operational in April 2023—provides mark owners with enhanced legal protection compared with the country’s former system. Correspondingly, the current system imposes more rigorous statutory requirements for obtaining, maintaining, and enforcing rights in marks. In this first-to-file trademark registration system, however, evidence of use remains particularly significant, as it may establish acquired distinctiveness, support a claim that a mark is well-known, and strengthen the owner’s position in both registration and enforcement proceedings. Accordingly, it can be said that this framework is underpinned by three key concepts: distinctiveness, well-known status, and, importantly, use of the trademark. Trademark Distinctiveness Under the Trademark Law, signs that lack distinctiveness are generally ineligible for mark protection. These signs include generic terms, basic shapes, unstylized single letters or numerals, and signs that merely describe the kind, quality, quantity, intended purpose, value, geographical origin, production time, or other characteristics of the relevant goods or services. However, a mark that would otherwise be refused on distinctiveness or descriptiveness grounds may be registrable if it has acquired distinctiveness through its use prior to the filing date. To show this, the applicant must demonstrate that the mark became distinctive to relevant consumers through continuous, exclusive, and good-faith use in trade within Myanmar. The burden of proving acquired distinctiveness rests with the mark owner. Accordingly, sufficient evidence demonstrating both use of the mark and the level of consumer recognition attained should be prepared in advance. Well-Known Mark Criteria Myanmar’s Trademark Rules, which govern the substantive examination of mark registration applications, establish criteria for determining well-known marks, aligned with international standards. Where an applicant claims well-known status—whether to overcome a refusal on relative grounds or to oppose a third party’s registration—the registrar will assess the claim based on the following
Read More
September 14, 2026
On August 23, 2026, Vietnam’s National Assembly passed Law No. 11/2026/QH16, amending the country’s Customs Law with effect from March 1, 2027. The amendments represent a substantial reform of Vietnam’s customs-based intellectual property enforcement regime. The reforms come amid considerable external pressure. In its 2026 Special 301 review, the US Trade Representative (USTR) designated Vietnam a “priority foreign country,” citing widespread counterfeiting, weak border enforcement, limited ex officio customs powers, and the absence of controls over goods in transit. Vietnam’s legislative response signals a commitment to bringing its border enforcement practices into line with international expectations. For IP rights holders operating in or through Vietnam, the amended law introduces several tools that substantially strengthen enforcement options at the border. Closing the Transit Gap One of the most consequential amendments is the extension of IP-related customs enforcement to goods in transit. Previously, Vietnam’s customs regime applied IP controls only to goods being imported or exported, a gap the USTR had specifically identified as enabling infringing goods to pass through Vietnamese ports with impunity. Vietnam’s geographic position as a logistics hub for Southeast Asia means that substantial volumes of goods transit its ports and free-trade zones. Extending enforcement to cover these shipments brings Vietnam closer to the standard set by the EU’s customs enforcement regulation and addresses a longstanding concern of multinational brand owners whose goods are frequently counterfeited in the region. Strengthened Suspension and Ex Officio Powers The amended law introduces a dual-track suspension mechanism (Article 73(2)). Customs authorities will suspend clearance upon request by an IP rights holder (or authorized representative) who provides evidence of IP ownership, evidence of infringement, and a financial guarantee. Customs can now proactively suspend clearance on an ex officio basis if, during inspection and monitoring, they discover “clear grounds” to suspect that imported, exported,
Read More
September 7, 2026
Indonesia’s Constitutional Court (Mahkamah Konstitusi) has reinstated a key provision limiting pharmaceutical patent protection, signaling a renewed commitment to balancing patent rights with public access to medicines. In its ruling to Case No. 255/PUU-XXIII/2025, the court partially granted a petition for judicial review of Law No. 65 of 2024, which had amended the country’s Patent Law, and ordered the restoration of a provision that had excluded certain pharmaceutical inventions from patentability. The decision took effect immediately upon its pronouncement at the court’s plenary session on August 28, 2026. Background The petition challenged the removal of article 4(f) from Law No. 13 of 2016 concerning Patents (Patent Law), as amended by Law No. 65 of 2024. Article 4(f) had excluded from patentability certain inventions relating to new uses of known substances. The petitioners argued that removing this provision would open the door to patent protection for second medical use inventions and facilitate patent evergreening—practices that can extend exclusivity periods, delay generic market entry, and reduce public access to affordable medicines. The petitioners included several patient advocacy and public-interest organizations: the Indonesian Dialysis Patients Community Association, the Indonesian Association of Drug Abuse Victims (PKNI), the Indonesian Pulmonary Hypertension Foundation (YHPI), the Rekat Peduli Indonesia Foundation, and the Indonesian Positive Women’s Association (IPPI), along with the Indonesia for Global Justice Association and four individual petitioners. The petitioners also challenged the constitutionality of the phrase “interested party” in article 70(1) of the Patent Law, arguing that it should be construed expressly to clarify who has standing to appeal a decision to grant a patent before the Board of Patent Appeal, and to allow a broader range of parties—such as patent holders, licensees, consumer organizations, prosecutors, aggrieved third parties, and others who may suffer direct or indirect harm from the grant of a patent—to
Read More
September 2, 2026
Thailand and China have a longstanding and significant trade relationship, which increasingly extends to e-commerce and digitally enabled supply chains. While these channels create new opportunities for businesses to reach consumers across borders, their growth also brings greater exposure to intellectual property (IP) infringement across jurisdictions and online platforms. Effective cooperation between the two countries’ enforcement authorities has therefore become increasingly important. To strengthen cooperation in this area, Thailand and China signed a memorandum of understanding (MOU) on IP enforcement in Beijing on July 20, 2026, during the Thai prime minister’s official visit to China. Officially titled “Memorandum of Understanding Between the State Administration for Market Regulation of the People’s Republic of China and the Ministry of Commerce of the Kingdom of Thailand on Cooperation in the Field of Intellectual Property Enforcement,” the MOU forms part of a broader bilateral agenda covering industrial and supply chains, participation by micro, small, and medium-sized enterprises (MSMEs), cooperation associated with the ASEAN–China Free Trade Area 3.0, and progress on the registration of Thai geographical indications in China. The MOU establishes a bilateral framework for cooperation and coordination in five broad areas: Strengthening dialogue in IP enforcement; Enhancing information sharing; Facilitating the enforcement of IP rights in cases arising in the parties’ domestic markets and on online platforms, in accordance with their respective domestic laws; Promoting cooperation in IP enforcement training and human resource development; and Undertaking other cooperation activities agreed upon by both sides. The Department of Intellectual Property (DIP) will serve as the principal coordinating agency for Thailand, while the Bureau of Law Enforcement and Inspection in China’s State Administration for Market Regulation (SAMR) will serve in that role for China. The framework is particularly relevant to the growth of e-commerce, as it covers infringement in the domestic markets and on
Read More