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​ 

July 24, 2026
As food innovation continues to accelerate, manufacturers are increasingly introducing ingredients derived from new sources, produced using novel technologies, or lacking a significant history of human consumption. While these innovations create new opportunities for the food industry, they also raise important questions regarding consumer safety. For this reason, many jurisdictions, including Thailand, the European Union, Australia and New Zealand, Canada, and Singapore, require a premarket safety assessment for novel food ingredients before they can be placed on the market. The objective of this assessment is to ensure that each ingredient is safe for its intended use and level of consumption, does not present toxicological, allergenic, microbiological, or nutritional concerns, and will not mislead consumers. Scientific authorities typically evaluate the ingredient’s identity, manufacturing process, composition, specifications, anticipated dietary exposure, toxicological information, nutritional impact, and history of use before determining whether it can be marketed. Against this background, the Thai Food and Drug Administration (FDA) recently took an important step toward improving regulatory transparency by publishing, for the first time, a consolidated public list of substances that have successfully completed the Thai FDA’s safety assessment process, including substances determined to be novel foods and those determined not to fall within the novel food category. The list identifies the approved substances, the corresponding manufacturers or importers, approval dates, and the approved conditions of use. Although the publication does not change the existing legal framework governing novel food approvals, it provides businesses with greater visibility into the Thai FDA’s regulatory precedents and the types of substances that have previously been accepted through the safety assessment process. The full announcement is available on the Thai FDA’s website. As the list is now publicly available, it also provides useful insight into the types of substances that have successfully completed the Thai FDA’s safety assessment process.
Read More
July 24, 2026
Indonesia has updated its fee framework for intellectual property (IP)-related government services, with implications for IP owners, licensees, lenders, digital platforms, and businesses operating in the country. Government Regulation No. 30 of 2026 on Types and Tariffs of Non-Tax State Revenue Applicable to the Ministry of Law (GR 30/2026) was promulgated on July 2, 2026, and will take effect on August 1, 2026. Key Takeaways GR 30/2026, which replaces the relevant IP service fees under Government Regulation No. 45 of 2024, reorganizes the fee schedule into separate categories for copyright, industrial designs, patents, layout designs of integrated circuits, trade secrets, trademarks, geographical indications, IP enforcement, and other categories. The most commercially relevant changes include a new copyright recordation tariff exemption for songs and music, higher fees for several trademark and geographical indication services, new IP enforcement service fees, and a new fee type for registration of fiduciary security over IP rights objects. In addition, this is the first major update for trademark fees in approximately 10 years. GR 30/2026 is significant not only as a fee update but also as a further indication of Indonesia’s increasing recognition of IP as a financeable commercial asset. By expressly assigning fees to the registration of fiduciary security over IP rights objects, the regulation places IP-backed collateral filings within the Ministry of Law’s administrative service framework. While GR 30/2026 does not create a new secured-transactions regime, this development is relevant for lenders, borrowers, and IP owners structuring financing arrangements secured by trademarks, patents, copyrights, industrial designs, or other registrable IP rights in Indonesia. Copyright: New Fee Exemption for Songs and Music Recordation For copyright, GR 30/2026 creates a fee-exempt category for recordation of works or related-rights products for songs or music, while maintaining a separate category for other works and related-rights products. It
Read More
July 21, 2026
Thailand’s Ministry of Digital Economy and Society (MDES) published a notification establishing an expedited court-ordered takedown mechanism for online content in cases of “urgent necessity.” The notification, which was issued on July 17, 2026, under the Computer Crime Act B.E. 2550 (2007), as amended, took effect the following day. It significantly expands the categories of content subject to rapid government-initiated removal. Content Categories Subject to Takedown The notification defines “urgent necessity” (section 20, paragraph 5, of the Computer Crime Act) as circumstances where any delay in suppressing computer data may impact national security, religion, the monarchy, good morals, social culture, or public order. In this regard, it establishes four broad categories of content: Computer Crime Act offenses. National security offenses. IP and other criminal offenses, where it is contrary to public order or good morals and a competent officer has requested its suppression. Content contrary to public order or good morals, a broad residual category encompassing 14 subcategories approved by the Computer Data Screening Committee. The fourth category is the most expansive. Its 14 subcategories include: Content defaming, mocking, satirizing, or devaluing the monarchy. Online gambling advertising or facilitation. Offering illegal firearms for sale. Offering baraku (hookah) products or e-cigarettes for sale. Offering cannabis inflorescences or processed cannabis products for sale. Advertising or soliciting prostitution. Content inciting violence, hatred, or social division. Unauthorized overseas employment advertising. Offering boiled kratom juice for sale. Online sale or advertising of alcoholic beverages. Content satirizing or degrading Buddhism. Money lending at interest rates exceeding legally prescribed limits. Advertising or disseminating information about surrogacy services. Forgery of documents, cards, or official documents. Enforcement Procedure In cases of urgent necessity, a competent official assigned by the MDES permanent secretary must file a petition with supporting evidence to the court with jurisdiction, requesting an order to
Read More
July 15, 2026
Ambush marketing refers to a strategy in which a business associates itself with an event, campaign, or brand without paying for official sponsorship rights. The tactic is most visible in sports, concerts, and festivals, where official sponsors have invested substantially for exclusivity. Ambush marketers may use suggestive wording, event-themed imagery, athlete endorsements, venue-adjacent promotions, or social media campaigns implying a commercial connection with the event. Common Forms of Ambush Marketing Ambush marketing typically takes one of the following forms: Direct ambushing: using event names, logos, or mascots suggesting authorization Coattail ambushing: sponsoring an athlete or broadcaster connected with the event Subtle ambushing: themed advertising, venue-adjacent campaigns, or similar visual cues The legal analysis in each case turns on whether the marketing crosses from permissible event-based advertising into infringement, passing off, deception, or wrongful exploitation of goodwill, and the risk assessment is necessarily fact-specific. Thailand has no dedicated ambush marketing statute, so legality depends on execution. A campaign that merely comments on a public event may be permissible, but one that uses protected marks, creates consumer confusion, misrepresents sponsorship status, or makes unsubstantiated claims may trigger liability under various Thai laws, as laid out below. Ambush Marketing and Thailand’s Trademark Act The Trademark Act B.E. 2534 (1991) is the primary tool for addressing campaigns that use registered trademarks, event names, logos, mascots, or confusingly similar signs. The law gives registered trademark owners the exclusive right to use their mark for registered goods, and infringement risk arises when a nonsponsor uses an event mark or a confusingly similar sign in advertising. Even referential or playful use may create liability if it causes public confusion as to sponsorship or commercial connection. The law also preserves passing-off claims for unregistered marks. This matters because event names, taglines, or mascots may not always be
Read More