On June 6, 2025, the Superior People’s Court in Hanoi overturned a non-use cancellation decision by the Intellectual Property Office of Vietnam, a rare and impactful occurrence. In a ruling that may help clarify the enforcement of Vietnam’s IP Law, the court held that valid trademark use can be established through commercial arrangements where the brand owner maintains actual control over the use of the mark, and is not confined to relationships governed by a so-called “formal license agreement. Background: Cross-Border Use, Local Challenge A Singapore company owns a well-known brand of consumer products that has gained recognition across Southeast Asia. In recent years, the brand has been targeted by several unauthorized trademark filings in Vietnam. In one such instance, a local Vietnamese trading company—previously linked to the production and export of counterfeit goods to neighboring countries—filed a non-use cancellation against the Singapore company’s mark and sought to register it under its own name. If the cancellation had been upheld, it would have enabled a complete hijacking of the brand. The IP holder operates in Vietnam through a structured cross-border supply chain. Under an agreement between two related foreign entities, one of which managed regional operations, production orders were placed through a designated Vietnamese company. While the Vietnamese manufacturer was not a party to the agreement, its role in using the mark was recognized and governed by internal and commercial documentation. The Vietnamese manufacturer lawfully obtained the necessary permits, regulatory approvals, and customs clearances for producing the goods in Vietnam. These activities were supported by banking records and internal communications, evidencing active, continuous use of the mark in Vietnam. However, the IP Office concluded that this use did not meet the statutory criteria because the Vietnamese manufacturer did not have a direct license agreement with the brand owner, as

In cross-border disputes, a recurring concern for claimants is whether they can protect respondents’ assets located in jurisdictions other than the seat of arbitration. This article explores whether Thai courts can issue interim measures, such as freezing orders, under Section 16 of the Thai Arbitration Act (2002) to support an arbitration seated outside of Thailand. Requesting Interim Measures Section 16 provides that a party to an arbitration agreement may request that the court impose interim measures, either before or during arbitral proceedings. If the court determines that it would have been able to impose such measures had the proceedings been conducted in court, it may proceed as requested. Notably, Section 16 does not limit its application to arbitrations seated in Thailand. It simply refers to “a party to an arbitration agreement,” which arguably includes both domestic and international arbitrations. Further, it allows for applications even before arbitration is commenced, provided that the arbitration is initiated within thirty days from the issuance of the order (or other period the court prescribes). A Hypothetical Scenario Consider the following scenario: Company A, incorporated in the Netherlands, and Company B, incorporated in the Cayman Islands, have entered into a contract containing a clause requiring arbitration at the Singapore International Arbitration Center (SIAC). A dispute arises, and Company A commences arbitration at SIAC. Company B holds significant assets in Thailand, such as bank accounts or real estate. Concerned that Company B might dispose of its assets before an award is rendered, Company A applies to the Thai court seeking a freezing order over those assets. Can the Thai court issue such an interim measure? The answer is not straightforward. Thai law is silent regarding whether Section 16 applies to arbitrations seated outside Thailand, leaving the door open for argument. Some academic sources suggest that

On June 20, 2025, Cambodia’s Ministry of Economy and Finance issued Instruction No. 19116 to clarify when board members and company directors must receive salaries and pay payroll taxes. Board members and company directors who are not considered employees are subject to a withholding tax. This category consists of people who complete services for a nonresident individual and people who perform independent work for a company in Cambodia. Board members and company directors who are considered employees, including those appointed by a foreign head office to temporarily manage a company in Cambodia, must pay payroll taxes on any salary they receive, regardless of whether they are paid by a local or foreign branch of the company. The above obligations apply regardless of whether the person has a work permit. Board members and company directors are exempt from paying payroll tax if they: Are not present and not performing a regular management role at the company despite being registered on the company’s statutes or patent tax card; Participate only in board meetings and occasional shareholder meetings; and Do not receive a salary from a company in Cambodia. Overall, this instruction provides an important clarification regarding the tax obligations of board members and company directors. Companies should pay attention to the classification of their board members and directors and be mindful of the exemption.   This article was written with the assistance of Tilleke & Gibbins interns Amelia Gemma Erickson and Amrin Keat.

On June 17, 2025, Cambodia’s Ministry of Economy and Finance issued Instruction No. 18574 on Tax Obligations for Share Premiums to clarify that enterprises are not required to pay any income tax on share premiums that meet the conditions set out in the instruction. As outlined in the relevant provisions of the Law on Taxation (Royal Kram No. NS/RKM/0523/004) and Prakas No. 578 MEF.PrK.GDT on Tax on Income, taxable income is the difference between an asset’s value at the beginning and end of a period. This calculation deducts capital contributions, which are not taxable. A share premium is the amount of money that a company receives in excess of the par value of a share when the company issues new shares to a shareholder through a share subscription. In other words, share premiums are capital contributions made by shareholders into the equity of the company and, as a result, are not taxable. However, the government may nevertheless view share premiums as taxable if the company fails to meet certain legal conditions. Cambodian law requires share subscriptions to be properly recorded in the company’s accounting books and supported by documentary evidence. The recent instruction states that if an enterprise does not have proper documentation, any increase in equity, such as a capital increase through share premiums, will be treated as taxable income in accordance with the law. The instruction provides the following example: Enterprise A issues 200,000 new shares to an investor. The shares were registered with a par value of KHR 4,000 per share and were sold for a sale price of KHR 10,000 per share. The share premium of KHR 1.2 billion, which is calculated by subtracting the total par value (KHR 800 million) from the total value of the new capital (KHR 2 billion), is a capital