On May 2, 2025, the Trade Competition Commission of Thailand (TCCT), in cooperation with the OECD, held a conference to discuss the results of the OECD Peer Review of Thailand’s competition law and policy. This review, conducted under the second phase of the OECD-Thailand Country Program, marks a significant milestone in Thailand’s ongoing institutional reform. Tilleke & Gibbins’ trade competition experts were invited to participate in both the program and the conference. The OECD Peer Review aimed to assess the current state of Thailand’s legal and regulatory environment surrounding competition law and policies, pinpoint strengths and weaknesses, and offer recommendations on potential future development. This article highlights the review’s key findings and recommendations, and their implications for businesses operating in Thailand. Institutional Framework: Room for Improvement Competition law in Thailand has undergone significant transformation, particularly since the enactment of the Trade Competition Act B.E. 2560 (2017) (TCA). This landmark legislation aimed to revolutionize the competition regime, notably by amending important legal provisions to enhance public enforcement capabilities and establishing the TCCT as an independent authority separate from government ministries, endowed with its own budget and powers to enforce competition law across key areas: anticompetitive agreements, abuse of dominant market positions, merger control, and unfair trade practices. The goal was to create a more efficient, flexible, and independent agency and to prevent political intervention. However, the OECD Peer Review points out a major impediment. The TCCT faces considerable budget and human resource constraints, which may impact its enforcement capacity. Its budget is comparatively low by international and regional standards, and only a fraction of its staff is dedicated to core competition enforcement (merger control and anticompetitive behavior). Furthermore, there is room for the TCCT to continue its improvements in expertise and efficiency—areas the TCCT has been attempting to shore up

Attorneys from Tilleke & Gibbins have updated the latest edition of Doing Business in Thailand, a Q&A-style guide from Thomson Reuters Practical Law that offers an overview of key legal considerations for companies operating in jurisdictions worldwide. The contribution outlines the country’s legal and regulatory framework for foreign investment and business operations and reflects the latest legislative developments. The chapter addresses the following core topics: Legal system: Structure of the courts and the codified nature of Thai law. Foreign investment: Business restrictions under the Foreign Business Act, sector-specific regulations, exchange control rules, and investment incentives. Business vehicles: Overview of partnerships, private and public limited companies, and other legal entities. Employment: Labor protections, employment contracts, foreign worker requirements, and termination procedures. Tax: Corporate and personal income tax, indirect taxes, and tax obligations for residents and non-residents. Intellectual property: Registration and enforcement of patents, trademarks, designs, and copyrights. Data protection: Key provisions of the Personal Data Protection Act and related compliance obligations. Competition law: Regulatory framework under the Trade Competition Act. Anti-bribery and corruption: Relevant legislation and enforcement mechanisms. E-commerce and digital business: Legal regime for online transactions and digital platforms. Marketing and advertising: Consumer protection laws and regulations affecting advertising and marketing practices. Product regulation and liability: Safety standards, liability regimes, and roles of enforcement authorities. Practical Law, a legal reference resource from Thomson Reuters, publishes a range of guides for hundreds of jurisdictions and practice areas. The insurance and reinsurance guide is a valuable resource for legal practitioners, covering numerous jurisdictions worldwide. To view the latest version of the guide, please visit the Practical Law website and enroll in the free Practical Law trial to gain full access.

Tilleke & Gibbins recently assisted Bitmain, a leading manufacturer of cryptocurrency mining hardware, in successful cancellation action lawsuits against BITMAIN and ANTMINER trademarks that were unlawfully registered by a local party in Indonesia. Background Founded in 2013, Bitmain is a leading manufacturer of digital currency mining servers, marketed under their BITMAIN and ANTMINER brands. The company has maintained a strong global market share, with customers in over 100 countries and regions. In Indonesia, Bitmain has held the BITMAIN trademark registration in classes 35, 36, 41, and 42 since 2018. However, the company was unable to register the trademark in other classes because a local party had already registered the mark in the desired classes. Bitmain also discovered that their ANTMINER brand had been registered by the same local party, which impeded Bitmain’s application to register the ANTMINER trademark in Indonesia. Bitmain had been using these trademarks and products worldwide long before the local party’s registration in Indonesia, and had also secured trademark registrations in various countries. However, the local party exploited Indonesia’s first-to-file principle, securing the BITMAIN and ANTMINER trademarks before Bitmain could file. This was a classic example of trademark squatting, where a party registers a foreign trademark in a jurisdiction where the original owner has not yet filed, with the intent to profit from the brand’s success. Initial Approach Upon discovering that the local party had made these trademark applications, Bitmain found that one of these applications was still in the publication period. We advised and assisted Bitmain to file opposition against the application, but this opposition was subsequently refused because the local party had already obtained identical BITMAIN trademarks in other classes. Consequently, the application was registered in the Trademark Office database. Following the unfavorable opposition decision, we initially worked with Bitmain to seek a mutually

Vietnam is on the cusp of a major judicial reform with significant implications for intellectual property (IP) litigators. A draft law, expected to be passed in mid-2025, will restructure the court system into a three-tiered judicial hierarchy while retaining the current two-tiered trial structure. The reforms include the anticipated establishment of a specialized IP court and a reallocation of jurisdiction that may fundamentally change how and where IP disputes are resolved. From 63 to 34: Fewer Provinces, Fewer Courts – But Wider Reach Under the new model, the judiciary will be organized into three levels: (i) the Supreme People’s Court, with three newly established appellate courts in Hanoi, Da Nang, and Ho Chi Minh City, (ii) the 34 provincial-level People’s Courts (following a reduction from 63 provinces to 34 due to administrative consolidation), and (iii) a newly created tier of regional-level courts (tòa án khu vực) that will replace the existing district-level courts. Each regional court will encompass several district-level courts within a province. The number of regional courts in each province will be determined based on the number of districts following a planned reduction. While the number of provincial-level courts will decrease, the newly established regional-level courts will be granted expanded jurisdiction. Notably, these courts will have first-instance jurisdiction over a broad range of civil, commercial, and administrative matters. In criminal cases, they will handle offenses punishable by up to 20 years’ imprisonment, while more serious crimes will remain under the jurisdiction of provincial-level courts. For IP litigators, this likely means that first-instance cases, especially civil infringement disputes, will shift from the provincial level to the lower regional level. These regional courts will become the new battleground for IP enforcement. Same Two-Tier Adjudication, Different Game Board While the judicial structure is evolving, the core adjudicative framework remains unchanged: