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 21, 2012

Intellectual Property in ASEAN–Australia–New Zealand FTA

Subscribe to Updates
Informed Counsel

Having entered into force on January 1, 2010, the Association of Southeast Asian Nations (ASEAN)–Australia–New Zealand Free Trade Agreement (AANZFTA) aims to liberalize and facilitate trade in goods, services, and investment between Australia and New Zealand and Southeast Asia. The AANZFTA is quite comprehensive and wide in scope, covering such issues as trade in goods and services, competition, e-commerce, investment, and intellectual property (IP). Chapter 13 of the AANZFTA contains a number of specific obligations on IP protection, with the goal of reinforcing the World Trade Organization TRIPS obligations and achieving a higher level of IP protection beyond the minimum standards under the TRIPS Agreement.

Protection of Patents, Trademarks, and Copyrights

The agreement requires its parties to adhere to non-TRIPS IP treaties, including the Patent Cooperation Treaty (PCT), the Patent Law Treaty, and the Budapest Treaty on the International Recognition of the Deposit of Microorganisms for the Purposes of Patent Procedure (1977).

The incorporation of substantive PCT provisions will establish an international filing system for patent applications in ASEAN countries and will lead to better coordination in regard to international patent searches. The accession to the PCT will also extend the time period required to file a patent application (i.e., from the 12-month priority date for patent applications under the Paris Convention, to up to 30 months under the PCT).

With all the parties seeking accession to, and implementation of, the WIPO Patent Law Treaty, the AANZFTA will harmonize, to a certain degree, patent laws in regard to patentability criteria, patentable subject matters, procedures for obtaining and maintaining patents, and other patent matters.

ASEAN members, most of which are not parties to the Budapest Treaty, are also encouraged to seek accession to this multilateral patent convention. Accession to the Budapest Treaty will facilitate the patent-granting process for biotechnology patent applications.

The provision on trademarks and geographical indications (GI) simply requires parties to make available, on the Internet, databases listing all pending and registered trademark rights in their respective jurisdictions. The AANZFTA, in line with Australia’s and New Zealand’s position in multilateral trade negotiations, relies on trademark and unfair competition law for the protection of GI. The AANZFTA also requires each party to protect trademarks that predate GIs in its jurisdiction.

While Australia and New Zealand gain when GIs are protected as trademarks, the use of trademarks for GIs may inhibit the attempts of some ASEAN countries (e.g., Thailand, which has enacted comprehensive legislation on the protection of GIs) to extend the protection of wines and spirits to all products, and to use GIs as a tool for the promotion of their quality products.

For copyright protection, TRIPS requires criminal proceedings to take place for cases involving willful copyright piracy for commercial advantage or financial gain. The AANZFTA extends this obligation to cases where a person willfully commits a significant infringement of copyright that is not committed for commercial advantage or financial gain, but which has a “substantial prejudicial impact” on the owner of the copyright. Each party is also required to foster the establishment of appropriate bodies to permit the collective management of copyrights.

The AANZFTA parties have agreed to increase the level of protection for digital technologies by providing adequate legal protection and effective legal remedies against the circumvention of effective technological measures that authors and related rights holders apply to protect their content. Effective legal remedies against the circumvention of technological measures are already incorporated in legislation in Australia and New Zealand, but they have not been incorporated in the legislation of most ASEAN countries. This obligation will persuade ASEAN countries to reform their existing copyright regimes by extending the conventional economic rights of the author to the right to use and distribute circumventing devices. This will enable the copyright owners to extend control over access to, and distribution of, digital works.

The AANZFTA provides a guarantee to the software owners that, not only will their copyrights over software be highly protected, but also they will have exclusive rights to sell their products to national government agencies.

Protection of Genetic Resources, Traditional Knowledge, and Folklore

The AANZFTA recognizes the significance of protecting informal knowledge and cultural property and provides that “each party may establish appropriate measures to protect genetic resources, traditional knowledge and folklore.” The inclusion of these issues (which are still being discussed multilaterally in this regional FTA) is not surprising given that ASEAN, Australia, and New Zealand are known for possessing great wealth in terms of cultural and natural heritage.

Transparency and Cooperation

The AANZFTA requires parties to implement a number of measures that will enhance transparency and improve the management of IP rights. This includes the requirement for making IP laws and regulations, and final judicial decisions and administrative rulings, publicly available on the Internet and in English. This requirement will foster greater transparency and predictability in relation to IP enforcement and will lead to a more open, predictable, and transparent business environment, which will in turn create greater confidence in the market.

Implications

As the ASEAN Economic Community comes into effect in 2015, a unified and borderless ASEAN economic entity will present greater business challenges and opportunities for enterprises and investors from Australia and New Zealand. Compared to the FTAs that were negotiated and signed by the United States and the European Union, the IP chapter under the AANZFTA is relatively simple and straightforward, and will raise fewer questionable implications than those of the US and the EU. Once the IP provisions are implemented, the AANZFTA will not only give Australia’s and New Zealand’s exporters and investors greater access to these lucrative and integrated markets, but will also provide a high degree of protection for their valuable intellectual assets.

Download Full Article
Related Professionals

Practices

Intellectual Property

Location

RELATED INSIGHTS​ 

August 20, 2026
As part of its membership in Lex Mundi, Tilleke & Gibbins has released the latest edition of its Guide to Doing Business in Thailand, providing an overview of the legal, regulatory, and commercial considerations for companies establishing or expanding operations in Thailand. The 2026 edition offers practical insight into the country’s business environment, investment framework, and operational requirements. The guide covers a wide range of topics relevant to foreign and domestic investors, including: Investment incentives and promotion schemes Financial facilities and banking regulations Exchange controls and money transfers Import and export regulations Business structures and incorporation options Requirements for establishing a business Operational and compliance considerations Business cessation and insolvency procedures Employment and labor laws Taxation Immigration and visa requirements Prepared by Tilleke & Gibbins lawyers across multiple practice areas, the publication outlines key aspects of doing business in Thailand, including foreign investment restrictions, regulatory compliance obligations, corporate structures, employment requirements, and recent legal and economic developments affecting investors. The publication forms part of Lex Mundi’s Country Guides series, a global collection of jurisdiction-specific reference materials prepared by member firms around the world. Together, these guides help companies evaluate opportunities, compare regulatory environments, and plan international business activities across multiple markets. The full Guide to Doing Business in Thailand 2026 is available through the button below.
Read More
August 13, 2026
Modern agricultural machinery is no longer purely mechanical but instead technology dependent. Modern tractors, harvesters, and other farm equipment increasingly incorporate embedded software, electronic control units, sensors, and digital diagnostic systems. While such technologies enhance efficiency, productivity, and precision farming, they also affect the manner of equipment repair and maintenance. As a result, farmers and independent repair providers may have little practical choice but to rely on authorized dealers, even for routine maintenance and repairs. Section 36 of Thailand’s Patent Act reflects the principle that the authorized sale of a patented invention usually exhausts the exclusive right of the patent owner over the specific product. This means that upon legal sale of the patented product, it can typically be used or resold without further authorization from the patent holder. This principle is relatively straightforward when applied to traditional mechanical equipment. Ownership of a machine ordinarily carries with it the practical ability to diagnose faults, replace worn parts, and restore the equipment to working order. Modern agricultural machinery, however, increasingly depends on embedded software, proprietary diagnostic systems, firmware updates, and other digital resources that may remain under the control of the manufacturer or patent holder. This tension lies within the “right to repair” debate. In the United States, on July 8, 2026, the Federal Trade Commission and five states announced a settlement with Deere & Company resolving allegations that Deere had unlawfully restricted farmers’ and independent repair providers’ ability to repair their equipment. Under the terms of the settlement, for the next ten years, Deere must provide repair resources, including software capabilities, on terms equivalent to those provided to authorized dealers. The Deere settlement highlights that the nature of ownership is changing, but legal concepts have not kept pace. Traditional patent-law concepts, including patent exhaustion, were developed with physical products
Read More
August 10, 2026
Thailand has finalized its social media KYC (“know your customer”) rules under Notification of the Electronic Transactions Commission on Measures to Prevent Technological Crimes for Social Media Service Providers (No. 2), which was published in the Government Gazette on May 5, 2026, and will take effect on November 1, 2026. While an early draft of the notification proposed requiring social media platforms to arrange identification of every user account, the final notification is significantly more targeted, focusing on paid online advertising and advertiser identity verification. Though the regulatory initiative primarily aims to combat online fraud and technology-related crimes, it also has important consequences for intellectual property enforcement, because the verified platform records that will be generated under the new requirements can help IP rights holders to identify anonymous online infringers. Key Regulatory Mandates The notification requires social media service providers to verify the identity of advertisers before their paid advertisements are published and disseminated in Thailand through social media, regardless of whether the advertising fees come from the advertisers or third parties. Verification of an advertiser is valid for one year, after which verification would have to be performed again before the platform could publish additional paid advertisements from the advertiser. Permitted verification methods are specified under the notification. A platform may verify an advertiser by checking identity evidence and confirming the connection between the advertiser and that identity evidence, with the notification giving facial comparison against certain government-issued identity documents as an example. Alternatively, platforms may verify advertisers through a digital identity verification and authentication system with an identity-proofing assurance level not lower than the level prescribed by Thailand’s Electronic Transactions Commission. The notification further requires platforms to retain only the advertiser’s information necessary to identify the advertiser, beginning from the start of the advertising activity and for
Read More
August 6, 2026
Introduction: A Trademark Paradox in Sustainable Packaging Walk into any Thai supermarket, and the label-free water bottle is no longer a novelty. Thailand’s packaging market, valued at approximately USD 15.68 billion in 2025, is shifting toward minimalist, plastic-light designs as ESG pressures reshape how brands present their products. The country generated roughly 5.68 million tons of plastic waste in 2021, with a recycling rate of only 19 percent, and regulators are now considering rules that would allow label-free bottled water relying on embossing, laser printing, or QR codes instead of wrap-around labels. As packaging itself becomes the brand identifier, a paradox emerges: designs built to say the least often struggle hardest for protection under Thai intellectual property law. The Trademark Barrier: When Shape Is Not Enough Section 7, paragraph 2(10) of the Thai Trademark Act deems a shape distinctive only if it is not the natural form of the goods, is not necessary to achieve a technical result, and does not add value to the goods. The Department of Intellectual Property’s 2022 examination guidelines apply this test conservatively, as the following examples illustrate. A plain water bottle relying on subtle contours to signal its brand is typically read as just another bottle, not a source identifier. Acquired distinctiveness offers a theoretical escape route, but it demands extensive evidence of sales, advertising, and consumer recognition—an especially heavy burden for new entrants whose minimalist packaging has not yet achieved market prominence. The result is a structural bias against precisely the design innovation that sustainability goals are meant to encourage. Design Patents: A Partial, Imperfect Substitute Design patent protection, covering a product’s shape, configuration, or ornamentation, appears to offer an alternative route. In practice, it is constrained by the same forces driving the minimalist trend. Because many brands converge on similar solutions—clear
Read More