Tilleke & Gibbins has contributed the Vietnam chapter to Corporate Governance 2025, part of the International Comparative Legal Guides (ICLG) series published by Global Legal Group. This respected guide offers comprehensive, jurisdiction-specific overviews of corporate governance laws and practices around the world. Each jurisdictional chapter follows a clear Q&A format, providing practical insights into critical issues such as: Sources of corporate governance regulation Shareholders’ rights, powers, and responsibilities Structure and duties of management bodies Stakeholder involvement in governance Transparency and reporting requirements ESG and sustainability-related obligations Cybersecurity and technology-related disclosures The Vietnam chapter was authored by Tram Ngoc Bich Nguyen, Truc Thi Thanh Tran, Dung Thi Phuong Le, and Quang Minh Vu, members of Tilleke & Gibbins’ corporate and commercial team in Ho Chi Minh City. The authors provide detailed analysis of Vietnam’s corporate governance framework, including recent developments such as the 2025 amendments to the Law on Enterprises requiring disclosure of ultimate beneficial ownership and the increasing emphasis on sustainable business practices and responsible corporate conduct. The chapter also discusses practical considerations for foreign investors in Vietnam, such as overlapping signing authorities between key company officers, enforcement of shareholders’ agreements, and disclosure obligations related to ownership and management roles. The complete Vietnam chapter is available as a PDF below. The Vietnam chapter—and the full Corporate Governance 2025 guide—are also freely available on the ICLG website.

The Madrid System for international trademark registration provides the opportunity for a simplified and cost-effective way to register trademarks in multiple countries through a single application. Indonesia joined the Madrid System in 2018, and in 2024 alone, it received over 8,600 applications through this system. Despite the system’s effectiveness, it is important for trademark owners to be aware of the potential risks of refusal that can arise during the process of registration. Trademark applicants must pay close attention to these critical points when designating Indonesia. Appointing a Local Representative to Respond An applicant or representative of an international registration (IR) application that has been provisionally refused must appoint a local Indonesian representative in order to submit a response to the provisional refusal. This appointment is solely for the purpose of responding to the refusal in Indonesia; it is not necessary if the IR has not received any rejection. Furthermore, the local representative should not be registered with WIPO, as doing so would affect representation across all designated countries. Timing When it comes to calculating the deadline for responding to a provisional refusal, there is a discrepancy between the methods used by the DGIP and WIPO. Under the Indonesian Trademark Law, trademark owners can file a response within 30 working days, excluding weekends and national holidays. However, the WIPO cover letter accompanying the DGIP’s provisional refusal notice specifies both the start date and the deadline for responding to the notification, which is calculated as 30 calendar days, including weekends and national holidays. Therefore, a response to the provisional refusal of IR should be submitted in accordance with the WIPO cover letter to prevent any formality issue. Grounds for Refusal After an IR application is published in Indonesia’s Trademark Gazette, it undergoes substantive examination by the Directorate General of Intellectual Property (DGIP) examiners. The

Artificial intelligence (AI) model training and data scraping are essential processes in the development of modern AI systems. AI model training involves using large datasets to teach machine learning algorithms to recognize patterns, make predictions, or generate new content. Data scraping refers to the automated extraction of information from websites or digital sources, often to assemble the vast datasets required for effective AI training. As these practices become more widespread, questions about the legality of using third-party content—especially copyrighted works—have become increasingly important. In Thailand, the legal landscape for AI developers is shaped primarily by the Copyright Act, which presents unique challenges due to the absence of a fair-use exception. This article examines the copyright-related risks and legal uncertainties facing AI developers under Thailand’s current copyright law and practices, offering strategic guidance for navigating this complex environment. Copyright Risks in AI Scraping and Training Thailand’s Copyright Act does not provide a broad fair use or fair dealing exception, unlike some other jurisdictions, such as the United States. This absence has significant consequences for AI developers: No general defense for AI training: Any use of copyrighted material for AI model training is presumed to be infringing unless a specific, narrow statutory exception applies or explicit permission is obtained from the rights holder. There is no general legal basis for using copyrighted works in AI training without authorization. Increased rights clearance burden: Developers must identify and secure licenses for every copyrighted work included in their training datasets. Given the scale and diversity of data required for effective AI models, this process can be both impractical and costly. Legal ambiguity and litigation risk: The lack of clear statutory guidance or case law leaves developers in a legal gray area. There is no established precedent clarifying whether certain uses of copyrighted material for

On June 17, 2025, the National Assembly of Vietnam adopted Law No. 76/2025/QH15 (Amended LOE) amending and supplementing the 2020 Law on Enterprises, which aims to reshape the legal framework to enhance transparency and alignment with international standards. The Amended LOE took effect from July 1, 2025. Below are key notes on the Amended LOE. Recognition of Beneficial Owners The beneficial owner (BO) concept was previously addressed under Vietnam’s anti-money laundering framework. However, the formal recognition of a BO in the Amended LOE marks a pivotal advancement in embedding ownership transparency into corporate governance, in line with the G7 Financial Action Task Force’s standards on anti-money laundering and counter-terrorism financing. Under the Amended LOE and Decree No. 168/2025/ND-CP of the government dated June 30, 2025, on enterprise registration (Decree 168), a BO is identified through either equity ownership or control rights. Equity ownership: Individuals holding 25% or more of a company’s charter capital or voting shares, either directly or indirectly, qualify as BOs. Indirect ownership is further defined as ownership of at least 25% of charter capital or voting shares through an intermediary organization. Control rights: Individuals with the authority to make or influence major decisions are considered BOs. The actual control over a company includes the power (i) to appoint or remove most or all members of the board of directors or the members’ council or the general director of a company; (ii) to amend the charter; or (iii) to decide other key matters specified in the company’s charter. Notably, individuals representing state ownership in state-owned enterprises are excluded from the scope of the BO concept. Companies are responsible for collecting, updating, and retaining information about BOs and cooperating with authorities when requested to identify BOs, among other obligations. Additionally, any companies registered before July 1, 2025, must