Attorneys from Tilleke & Gibbins have updated the latest edition of Doing Business in Thailand, a Q&A-style guide from Thomson Reuters Practical Law that offers an overview of key legal considerations for companies operating in jurisdictions worldwide. The contribution outlines the country’s legal and regulatory framework for foreign investment and business operations and reflects the latest legislative developments. The chapter addresses the following core topics: Legal system: Structure of the courts and the codified nature of Thai law. Foreign investment: Business restrictions under the Foreign Business Act, sector-specific regulations, exchange control rules, and investment incentives. Business vehicles: Overview of partnerships, private and public limited companies, and other legal entities. Employment: Labor protections, employment contracts, foreign worker requirements, and termination procedures. Tax: Corporate and personal income tax, indirect taxes, and tax obligations for residents and non-residents. Intellectual property: Registration and enforcement of patents, trademarks, designs, and copyrights. Data protection: Key provisions of the Personal Data Protection Act and related compliance obligations. Competition law: Regulatory framework under the Trade Competition Act. Anti-bribery and corruption: Relevant legislation and enforcement mechanisms. E-commerce and digital business: Legal regime for online transactions and digital platforms. Marketing and advertising: Consumer protection laws and regulations affecting advertising and marketing practices. Product regulation and liability: Safety standards, liability regimes, and roles of enforcement authorities. Practical Law, a legal reference resource from Thomson Reuters, publishes a range of guides for hundreds of jurisdictions and practice areas. The insurance and reinsurance guide is a valuable resource for legal practitioners, covering numerous jurisdictions worldwide. To view the latest version of the guide, please visit the Practical Law website and enroll in the free Practical Law trial to gain full access.

On January 6, 2025, the government of Vietnam issued Decree No. 05/2025/ND-CP amending and supplementing Decree No. 08/2022/ND-CP detailing the Law on Environmental Protection (“Decree 05”). Decree 05 came into effect immediately upon issuance and provides several changes to the regulations governing extended producer responsibility (“EPR”) for applicable manufacturers and importers, outlining their obligations concerning the recycling and treatment of discarded products and packages. (See our previous article on Vietnam’s EPR regulations here.) Outlined below are some critical amendments in Decree 05. Entities Subject to EPR Regulations Previously, Decree 08 limited the responsibility for recycling to manufacturers and importers of products and packaging specified in statutory lists. Decree 05 expands this scope by also including entities responsible for the quality and labeling of the regulated products and goods in Vietnam. Decree 05 inherits the regulations from Decree 08 that manufacturers and importers, if they produce and import products and packaging as stipulated by law, must fulfill their responsibility to recycle or support waste treatment activities. However, Decree 05 amends the lists of products/packaging that must be recycled or undergo waste treatment, and new products/packaging and recycling methods. Notably, rechargeable batteries (including those used in vehicles or for electrical and electronic devices) have been added to the list of regulated products and self-propelled vehicles and construction machinery have been removed from the list. Decree 05 also not only streamlines the recycling methods required for each type of product/packaging, but also removes the minimum requirement on the mass of products/packaging that must be recovered when recycling. Manufacturers and importers now have more flexibility in selecting recycling methods that are more suitable for actual recycling conditions in Vietnam. Decree 05 has revised the cases of exemption from recycling and waste treatment obligations, clarifying that both packaging manufacturers and importers with annual product

The Contract Committee of Thailand’s Office of the Consumer Protection Board has issued a notification updating the stipulation that any sale of a new vehicle or motorcycle requiring an upfront deposit from the consumer for reservation purposes is now classified as a contract-controlled business. Titled “Requiring Reservation Agreements for New Vehicles and Motorcycles to be Contract-Controlled Businesses B.E. 2567,” the notification takes effect on February 19, 2025, and supersedes the previous notification from 2008, which applied only to “vehicles” (excluding motorcycles). Key changes and requirements introduced by the new notification include: Inclusion of electric vehicles and motorcycles. The notification now extends beyond traditional vehicles powered by combustion engines to include those powered by electricity. It also covers motorcycles powered by both combustion engines and electricity. Definition of order deposit. An order deposit is defined as any money or benefit provided by the consumer to reserve a vehicle or motorcycle. It is distinct from a security deposit and is solely for reservation purposes. Standardized order deposit agreement. Order deposit agreements must be in Thai and clearly visible and readable. Business operators must use the template prescribed by the notification to ensure compliance with the standardized terms and conditions. This extends to both physical and electronic agreements and includes transactions facilitated by digital platform providers. Specification of delivery date. Agreements must specify the exact date, month, and year for delivery, unlike the previous requirement for only an estimated delivery date. Detailed deposit collection description. Agreements must outline the method of deposit collection, providing more specificity than the general description required previously. Prohibited terms. Agreements must not include: Limitation or exclusion of liability for the business operator’s faults. Provisions allowing the business operator to change the delivery date or conditions to the consumer’s detriment. Provisions allowing the business operator to terminate the

Thailand’s Central Intellectual Property and International Trade (IP&IT) Court has delivered a favorable ruling for Sumitomo Rubber Industries, Ltd., a major player in the tire manufacturing industry, regarding the registration of its motorcycle tire design patent. In this case, Tilleke & Gibbins represented Sumitomo in successfully advocating for recognition of the unique design elements in the company’s motorcycle tire products. Case Overview The case revolved around Sumitomo’s two design patent applications for motorcycle tire designs, which were initially rejected by the Department of Intellectual Property (DIP) on the grounds that they were similar to prior art. Based on an examination of the design elements, primarily focusing on the tire tread patterns, the DIP’s Patent Board had concluded that Sumitomo’s designs were not sufficiently unique to warrant patent protection, as the tread patterns of the new designs were deemed too similar to one found in prior art for tire products. In response, Tilleke & Gibbins filed a complaint with the IP&IT Court on behalf of Sumitomo, seeking a revocation of the Patent Board’s decision and requesting that the court compel the DIP, as the defendant, to proceed with the registration of Sumitomo’s design patents. The complaint emphasized that the designs were novel and distinct, warranting patent protection under Thai law. Legal Strategy The firm’s legal argument focused on the interpretation of Thai patent law, particularly regarding the protection of a product’s external appearance, and emphasized that the determination of a design’s novelty must consider the product’s overall appearance rather than isolating individual features. This approach is consistent with international guidelines on design patents, which require the evaluation of novelty and distinctiveness based on how an informed user would perceive the design as a whole. While Sumitomo’s tire tread patterns may share some superficial similarities to existing designs, the overall impression