Since Cambodia does not have any dedicated laws on data protection, there are no regulatory or enforcement authorities that are specifically tasked with handling, overseeing, or implementing personal data protection matters. Consequently, the following governmental bodies may have substantial powers in this realm: the Ministry of Commerce, the Ministry of Post and Telecommunications, and the Ministry of Interior. After reviewing the DMF [Data Management Framework adopted by ASEAN] and MCCs [Model Contractual Clauses for Cross-Border Data Flows], we are of the view that these standards broadly align with concepts of data protection that exist under Cambodian laws that implicate data protection issues. Therefore, Cambodian authorities may react positively to the guidelines provided under the DMF and MCCs. However, implementing these guidelines can be challenging for a developing country such as Cambodia due to the following reasons: inadequate data protection and cybercrime regulations; lack of technological advancement in information and communication technology; lack of technology experts who can effectively deal with advanced computer crimes; the high cost of digital data governance; and the fact that it may be time-consuming to put these guidelines into place. Positive and negative implications Furthermore, we anticipate that the guidelines would provide both positive and negative impacts on businesses. In terms of positive impact, the DMF and MCCs will likely: increase the cybersecurity of all companies doing business in Cambodia; enable businesses to have better data processes and protection and more secure internal data collection infrastructure; help businesses gain more credibility and improve their reputations; and increase companies’ customer base as clients will have stronger trust in companies and be willing to share data, knowing they are doing so in a secure environment. In terms of negative impact, both data exporters and data importers will be strictly required to abide by the data protection guidelines

E-commerce platforms have become some of the most significant marketplaces in Thailand, with millions of daily business transactions and huge numbers of online users. The increasing number of online shops operating on e-commerce platforms requires new techniques to be employed in online IP rights infringement cases. Both the private sector and the government have developed tools to enhance online IP enforcement, including ones using the latest legal technologies and artificial intelligence (AI). Many legal technologies and AI operations are still nascent and typically do not yet offer the best approach for online IP rights enforcement. For example, AI and other technologies available today are still unable to consistently differentiate between original and counterfeit products from the images and information displayed on the e-commerce platforms and the internet. Therefore, some of the most effective measures for online IP enforcement still involve manual online searches by experienced local investigators with deep understanding of the behaviors of local users (both sellers and buyers) and the ability to link relevant information across online platforms. Thailand’s Department of Intellectual Property (DIP), as the governmental office responsible for IP-related matters in Thailand, has initiated its new Memorandum of Understanding on the Protection of Intellectual Property Rights on the Internet. This memorandum of understanding (MOU) does not create additional rights for IP owners, but acts as a mechanism to gather all the relevant stakeholders to address issues related to online IP infringement in a unified, mutually agreeable manner. The signatories of the MOU fall into four categories: Governmental authorities: DIP, Department of Business Development, and Department of International Trade Promotion; E-commerce platform operators: Lazada, Shopee, and JD Central (the most popular e-commerce platforms in Thailand); IP rights holders: Particularly including trademark owners facing ongoing counterfeiting problems in Thailand; and Law firms. Although the MOU is not

Vietnam has become a big player in the global fashion industry. Garments made in Vietnam now appear all over the world, especially in the U.S. and the EU. In this value chain, however, Vietnamese companies usually play the role of garment processors, fulfilling the orders of big brands for immediate export purposes. While the goods bearing the registered marks are made in Vietnam by local companies, the brand owners are often overseas or global corporations. As a brand owner can lose protection of its mark in Vietnam due to non-use, this situation leads to the question of what constitutes “use” of a mark when the mark-bearing goods are processed for export only, and not sold in the Vietnam market. Article 124.5 of Vietnam’s IP Law provides that: Use of a mark means the performance of the following acts: Affixing the protected mark on goods, packaging, business facilities, means of service provision, or transaction documents in business activities; Circulating, offering, advertising, or stocking for sale goods bearing the protected mark; Importing goods or services bearing the protected mark. At first glance, the above provision seems quite clear. While importing goods appears on the list, exporting goods is conspicuously absent, and therefore it is not an act of use. However, it is also clear that for the purpose of exporting, a product should go through a manufacturing or processing stage in which the mark will be physically affixed to the product or its packaging. For fashion goods, this could be in the form of a removable tag or package, a tag sewn onto the item, or a fundamental part of the garment’s design (such as a T-shirt emblazoned with a brand name, or a shoe featuring a distinctive logo). Then, the question becomes whether this act of affixing the mark on

Myanmar, which is now more than halfway through the scheduled soft opening of its Intellectual Property Department (IPD) under the country’s New Trademark Law, is well on its way to the full realization of its plans for a modernized IP system operating on par with international standards. As the first of four IP-related laws passed in 2019, the ongoing implementation of the Trademark Law affects definitions of trademarks and types of trademark applications. Section 2 of the law defines a “mark” as “either a visible sign or a combination of signs, including one’s own names, alphabet letters, numbers, graphical representations, or compositions of color and tints to distinguish the goods or services of an enterprise from those of another enterprise. Within this scope, trademark, service mark, collective mark and certification mark are also included. The ‘series mark’ consists of a number of these marks, which resemble each other on the material particulars, but may differ in some aspect—for instance, a mark with different color variations. However, there is no specific definition of what makes up a series mark in the Trademark Law itself, and there has also not yet been any clear guidance on the issue. The Trademark Rules, which set the guidelines for the trademark application and registration procedures, are still in the process of being finalized, are expected to include information on the possibility of filing series marks under the soft opening period. On December 29 2020, the IPD held a workshop to clarify various issues, and informed attendees that applications containing more than one trademark in a single application are prohibited under the new system. However, this seemed to contradict the Ministry of Commerce’s Order No. 63/2020, which had declared that the refiling of old marks under the soft opening period of the new Trademark Law