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​ 

June 24, 2026
Patent enablement requirements are provided under Article 102 of Vietnam’s Law on Intellectual Property (IP Law). In particular, a patent specification must “fully and clearly disclose the nature of the invention to such an extent that, based on the specification, a person having ordinary skill in the relevant art can implement the invention.” In pharmaceutical and biotechnology patents, this requirement is more complicated and subject to more rigorous assessment. The Patent Examination Guidelines (Guidelines) of the Intellectual Property Office of Vietnam (IP Office) were amended in March 2026 to introduce Annexes III and IV for the pharmaceutical and biotechnology sectors, in which Annex III provides detailed guidelines on the assessment of specification requirements. These amendments were made under a project for strengthening capacity in industrial property examination between the Japan International Cooperation Agency (JICA) and the IP Office. Annex III provides detailed instructions on how examiners assess enablement in a pharmaceutical or biotechnology application, and offers examples of acceptable and unacceptable descriptions with regard to the enablement aspect. Enablement Requirements in Pharma and Biotech Patents Article 12.7 of Circular 10/2026/TT-BKHCN (Circular 10) adds to the requirements of Article 102 of the IP Law that the description must demonstrate the novelty, inventive step, and industrial applicability of the technical solution. For pharmaceutical composition subject matters, Article 12.9 of Circular 10 sets out that the description must present the results of clinical trials and/or the pharmacological effects of the claimed pharmaceutical composition, and must include at least the following information: Substance/mixture used. Testing method (system) employed. Information on the test results. Correlation between the pharmacological effects obtained from the tests and the application of the pharmaceutical product in the prevention, diagnosis, and treatment of diseases. The Guidelines note that pharmacological study results should be presented in a quantified manner, and pharmacological
Read More
June 16, 2026
Since the implementation of the Trademark Law 2019 on April 1, 2023, Myanmar has operated under a modern first-to-file trademark system that brings its registration framework closer to international practice. As the new regime continues to develop in practice, applicants are increasingly required to navigate formal examination requirements, substantive objections, and procedural deadlines with greater precision. This article provides a high-level review of the trademark examination process in Myanmar, focusing on the principal stages from initial review to approval, the types of objections commonly raised by the Intellectual Property Department (IPD), and the key considerations for responding effectively. A clear understanding of these issues is essential for applicants seeking to secure registration efficiently and to mitigate avoidable delays or refusals. Examination Process: Key Stages Trademark applications filed with the IPD undergo two stages of review. Formality Examination The IPD first verifies compliance with procedural requirements, including: Correct Nice Classification Clear mark representation Accurate applicant details Clearly defined goods or services Representative details, if the application is filed by a representative Other formality requirements cover translation and transliteration of any non-English or non-Myanmar elements in the mark, color claim details, applicable disclaimers, and payment of official fees. Deficiencies result in an office action requiring correction within 30 days, which may be extended upon request. Registrability Examination The IPD also assesses registrability. A mark may be refused if it: Lacks distinctiveness Is descriptive or generic Misleads the public or violates public order/morality Contains prohibited state symbols Only compliant applications proceed to publication. Responding to Office Actions Applicants must respond within 30 days of notification from the IPD. Depending on the nature of the objection, strategies may include submitting legal arguments for distinctiveness, providing evidence of acquired distinctiveness, filing appropriate disclaimers, clarifying descriptions such as color claims, or amending the listed goods
Read More
June 15, 2026
The surge in AI development has led to a desperate demand for large, high-quality training data. However, real-world data can be expensive to collect, difficult to access, and often subject to strict privacy and regulatory constraints. Synthetic data, which consists of artificially generated records that replicate the statistical properties of real-world data without reproducing specific individuals’ information, provides an appealing solution by generating artificial datasets at scale without relying on identifiable personal information. It combines speed, cost efficiency, and regulatory compliance, making it a sensible alternative for organizations seeking to reduce risks while maintaining data utility. When properly anonymized, synthetic datasets may fall outside the scope of laws such as the EU’s General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR) or Thailand’s Personal Data Protection Act (PDPA), reducing compliance burdens while still supporting high-quality model training. However, relying on synthetic data without rigorous legal due diligence could be a strategic mistake. It replaces one set of known risks (scraping, direct privacy liability) with a new set of complex liabilities. The narrative that synthetic data is a “silver bullet” for privacy and IP compliance is dangerous and could be misleading. While synthetic data addresses data scarcity, it also introduces new legal uncertainties. Legal counsel should anticipate downstream risks arising from compromised data sources. Models trained on unlawfully obtained data may need to be decommissioned, even if their outputs appear lawful. What is synthetic data? Synthetic data refers to artificially generated information created using AI techniques such as deep learning and generative models. Instead of copying real records, it reproduces the statistical patterns and relationships found in the original dataset. Synthetic data generally falls into three categories: Fully synthetic data – Entirely new data points generated from learned patterns. The model studies the structure of the original data and produces records that resemble real-world
Read More
June 10, 2026
In March 2026, the Intellectual Property Office of Vietnam (IP Office) issued a decision refusing a trademark application after considering an opposition based primarily on copyright grounds. The outcome is noteworthy because the foreign brand owner had neither trademark registrations nor applications in Vietnam at the time the opposition was filed, and the IP Office has historically applied a stringent approach to oppositions relying on copyright. The Opposition Maurten is a well-known Swedish sports nutrition brand recognized globally for its innovative hydrogel technology, which is designed to help endurance athletes fuel more effectively without gastrointestinal discomfort. The brand’s distinctive logo is characterized by clean lines and a bold black-and-white color scheme, and has long been associated with the company’s performance products. The brand’s logo is displayed above. An identical mark was filed for registration by a Vietnamese trademark squatter. In 2023, a Vietnamese individual filed an application for registration of an identical mark (Application No. 4-2023-38668), a practice commonly observed in Vietnam as trademark squatting. The brand owner engaged Tilleke & Gibbins to assist with strategy and filing an opposition to the mark. At the time, Maurten had no trademark rights or meaningful use in Vietnam, and global marketing data showed only modest figures without any local presence. Thus, to convince the IP Office to refuse the squatter’s application, instead of relying on trademark rights or use evidence, the opposition strategy centered on the copyright protection of the logo itself, as copyright arises automatically in Vietnam upon creation of the work and does not require registration. (It is worth noting, however, that the IP Office has traditionally been cautious in accepting copyright as a basis for refusing trademark applications.) On September 24, 2024, an opposition was filed on three main grounds: confusing similarity, copyright infringement of the artistic work,
Read More