Although the “passing off” principle has sometimes faced criticism for potentially broadening trademark protection—particularly in cases involving unregistered or unconventional marks like shapes, scents, or sounds—it serves an essential purpose. It safeguards the rights of business owners and shields consumers from deception, ensuring fair competition and reflecting the realities of modern commerce. What is passing off, and why is registrability not required? The passing-off principle is a legal concept rooted in English law, aimed at preventing a person from falsely representing or using a mark similar to another’s in a way that causes consumers to mistakenly believe the goods or services come from the same source. Under Thai law, the passing-off principle is provided under Section 46 of the Thai Trademark Act, which states: No person shall be entitled to bring legal proceedings to prevent or to recover damages for the infringement of an unregistered trademark. The provisions of this Section shall not affect the right of the owner of an unregistered trademark to bring legal proceedings against any person for passing off goods as those of the owner of the trademark. The passing-off principle can be interpreted as a practical legal concept. It does not require proof that the mark is registrable or meets the registrability criteria under trademark law. It is sufficient to show that the mark has established goodwill and that the other party’s use of a similar mark is likely to confuse consumers, making it a straightforward and effective tool for protecting brand assets. Requiring a claimant to prove that an unregistered mark could have been registered would undermine the very function of passing off. The doctrine was conceived precisely to fill the gaps left by the registration system. Imposing registrability criteria would nullify its function and leave many commercially valuable identifiers unprotected. If the

On August 7, 2025, the government of Vietnam promulgated Decree No. 219/2025/ND-CP on foreign workers working in Vietnam (Decree 219), introducing substantial reforms to the management of foreign employees. Taking immediate effect upon issuance, and superseding earlier regulations on foreign employees under Decree No. 152/2020/ND-CP as amended by Decree No. 70/2023/ND-CP (collectively referred to as “Decree 152”), Decree 219 sets out clear timeframes and application requirements for work permit issuance, while adopting more flexible policies to support business operations. The key new provisions are as follows: 1. Relaxed Requirements Regarding Job-Posting Under Decree 152, employers were required to follow a complex process to apply for work permits or work permit exemption certificates for foreign employees. This included posting an advertisement for any position the employer wished to fill with a foreign employee on a designated online portal for a given amount of time, to demonstrate that the company tried, but failed, to find a suitable Vietnamese candidate for the position. This job-posting step now only applies when the foreigner will work in Vietnam under a local labor contract. Foreigners coming to Vietnam as intra-corporate transferees (i.e., as secondees) or working under service contracts are exempt. The job-posting period is also reduced from 15 calendar days to five business days. Employers may also now post the advertisements on multiple websites instead of only the online portal of the Ministry of Labor, Invalids and Social Affairs (now the Ministry of Home Affairs after government restructuring) or the provincial-level employment service center. 2. Work Permit Application Dossier Previously, employers were required to complete a preapproval step, whereby they had to submit a dossier explaining their foreign labor demand that required approval from the labor authority. Once approval for the foreign labor demand was granted, the approval dossier was an integral part of

With the shift in US policy to discourage DEI programs among government and private-sector employers, some companies have been cutting back. But US companies should be cautious in eliminating their DEI programs globally, as some elements of these programs are obligations under local laws in Vietnam, Thailand, and Cambodia.

Indonesia’s Directorate General of Intellectual Property (DGIP) has introduced a temporary feature in its online filing system to accommodate the submission of annual patent working statements. The requirement to submit these annual working statements was introduced under the amended Patent Law enacted on October 28, 2024, but the implementing regulation has still not been issued. Annual Working Statements Article 20A of the amended Patent Law requires all patentees to submit an annual statement regarding the implementation of their patents in Indonesia. This obligation applies to all active patents, regardless of when they were granted. The annual working statement declares the status of implementation of the patented invention within Indonesia. Acceptable forms of implementation include: Manufacturing the patented product (whether commercialized or not) Utilizing the patented process (whether commercialized or not) Importation Licensing If the patent has not yet been implemented in Indonesia, the DGIP provides an option to indicate: “The mentioned registered patent has not been implemented in Indonesia.” The statement must be made using the official template provided by the DGIP through the online filing system. Submission The working statement must be submitted annually no later than December 31 of each calendar year. No supporting documents are needed for the submission apart from the signed form itself. A color scanned copy will suffice; the original document is not required. There is currently no official fee for submitting the working statement. While the submission process may eventually align with annuity fee payments, the current process remains separate due to the pending implementing regulation. The submission process may be subject to change upon issuance of the implementing regulation, which is under discussion and expected in the coming months. In the interim, the DGIP accepts submissions of overdue working statements, allowing patentees to fulfill their obligations retroactively. This flexibility is expected