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 13, 2026
When Decree No. 186/2026/ND-CP (Decree 186) takes effect on July 15, 2026, it will introduce the most significant reform of Vietnam’s administrative IP enforcement framework since Decree 99/2013/ND-CP was issued in 2013. These changes are expected to make administrative enforcement faster, more accessible, and better suited to the realities of modern IP disputes. Below are the principal reforms and their practical implications for rights holders and enforcement practitioners. The End of Notarization and Consular Legalization Among the most welcome procedural changes is the abolition of the notarization and consular legalization requirement for powers of attorney (POA) submitted in administrative enforcement proceedings. Under the previous regime, foreign rights holders were generally required to execute a POA, then have it notarized and consular legalized (if seeking customs recordal). In practice, this process frequently delayed enforcement by four to eight weeks, often long enough for infringing goods to disappear before authorities could intervene. Decree 186 removes this bottleneck, now requiring only an original or certified copy of the POA. If the document is in a foreign language, a Vietnamese translation is sufficient, provided it is certified by a competent authority or confirmed by the authorized Vietnamese IP representative. Consular legalization and notarization are no longer required. For rights holders, the practical impact is substantial. Administrative enforcement files that previously took weeks to prepare can now be completed in a matter of days, allowing much faster responses in time-sensitive matters such as warehouse raids, border interventions, and trade-fair enforcement. The decree also introduces a useful administrative simplification. Where an original POA has already been submitted to the same enforcement authority and remains valid, applicants may rely on a copy of that earlier submission by identifying the previous case file. This eliminates unnecessary duplication for rights holders pursuing multiple enforcement actions before the same
Read More
July 9, 2026
Recycling, upcycling, and refill-packaging models are now widely promoted as ways to reduce waste, lower carbon emissions, and respond to consumer demand for sustainable products. However, complications arise when these environmentally driven trends intersect with intellectual property law—particularly where reused or altered packaging continues to display third parties’ registered trademarks. Adding to this complexity, Thailand’s draft Sustainable Packaging Management Act aims to introduce new environmental compliance obligations that businesses must navigate alongside existing trademark concerns. Recycling and upcycling packaging may infringe trademark rights, especially in cases not protected by the first-sale doctrine—the principle that a trademark owner’s rights over a particular mark-bearing product end once the owner first sells it. Furthermore, even refill packaging carries legal risk due to specific statutory prohibitions under Thai law. Compounding these challenges, the draft Sustainable Packaging Management Act will impose extended producer responsibility (EPR) obligations on manufacturers and brand owners, requiring them to manage packaging throughout its lifecycle. These overlapping legal frameworks could deter manufacturers from pursuing ESG-aligned business models unless businesses understand how to navigate both trademark and environmental requirements. Under Thai law, this issue remains uncertain because the Trademark Act does not expressly codify the first sale doctrine, also known as the exhaustion of trademark rights. Generally, this doctrine provides that once a trademark owner has lawfully sold goods bearing its trademark, the owner’s right to control further resale of those particular goods is exhausted. The rationale is that the owner has already received commercial benefit from the first authorized sale; therefore, the purchaser should be free to resell or otherwise dispose of the goods. Although the doctrine is not expressly codified in the Trademark Act, Thai courts have recognized it in relation to genuine goods and parallel imports, as seen in a Supreme Court Judgment No. 2817/2543 in which the
Read More
July 6, 2026
Indonesia’s regulation on reporting online intellectual property (IP) infringement provides comprehensive procedural guidance for IP rights holders and their licensees in reporting online infringement complaints. Issued in December 2025 by the Ministry of Law as Regulation No. 47 of 2025 regarding Handling of Intellectual Property Infringement Reports in Electronic Systems, this regulation covers all types of IP rights. It also specifies documentation when reporting infringement, and lays out the procedures for examination, verification, and enforcement actions. Submission of Complaints Complainants may submit reports through the online system of the Directorate General of Intellectual Property (DGIP) or in person at the DGIP office. Complaints may also be filed through an authorized proxy. Under the regulation, complainants are required to provide the following information and documents: Personal details of the complainant; Brief description of the protected work or subject matter (i.e., type of IP and name or address of the infringing website, portal, account, or application, or a link to the location of the infringing content); Complete description of the alleged infringement; Certificate of registration or recordal of the relevant IP; Recordal of IP license agreement, if any; and Other supporting evidence. Verification and Examination Process Upon receiving a complaint, the responsible formality officer may request clarification or additional supporting documents. In the latter case, the complainant must then submit the necessary administrative documents within 14 days of the notification date. Once the documentation is deemed complete and sufficient, the case will be formally registered. Subsequently, the DGIP will establish a verification team to handle online IP violations, which will include the Civil Servant Investigator (PPNS), the Ministry of Communication and Digital Affairs, experts with relevant expertise in IP, and representatives from related associations such as AVISI (Indonesian Video Streaming Association). After examining the report, the team will prepare the Minutes
Read More
June 30, 2026
Customs recordation is an enforcement mechanism in Myanmar that enables intellectual property (IP) rights holders to seek prevention of the cross-border movement of infringing goods. The enactment of Myanmar’s IP laws in 2019 has enabled customs recordation for registered marks and copyrights under the Trademark Law 2019 and the Copyright Law 2019. By contrast, the Patent Law 2019 and the Industrial Design Law 2019 do not provide a practical framework for customs recordation, and accordingly such rights are not subject to the customs recordation regime. Under the Trademark Law 2019, rights holders may apply for customs recordation and may also ask the Customs Department to suspend the release of goods suspected of bearing counterfeit marks. Likewise, the Copyright Law 2019 allows for customs intervention in relation to pirated works. These provisions reflect Myanmar’s gradual alignment with international standards on border measures, although the implementation framework remains at a relatively early stage of development. Customs Recordation Pursuant to the Trademark Law 2019 and the Copyright Law 2019, the relevant authorities have issued customs rules concerning the protection of registered marks and copyrights. In practice, the process generally begins with the submission of an application to the Customs Department together with supporting documentation. This typically includes proof of registration in Myanmar; details of the rights holder, applicant, and any authorized representative; and a comprehensive description of the genuine goods. Product identification materials—such as photographs, packaging samples, and distinguishing features—are particularly important in helping customs officers identify suspected infringing goods. A recordation remains valid for two years from the date of approval. It may be renewed for additional two-year terms, provided that the renewal application is filed within the thirty days prior to expiry for marks and up to thirty days in advance of the expiry date for copyrights, in accordance with
Read More