Before the issuance in late 2019 of the Trade Competition Commission of Thailand’s Guidelines on Unfair Trade Practices in Franchise Businesses, which took effect in February 2020, Thai law made little mention of franchising as a business model—despite the great popularity of franchising in the country. The guidelines, which were issued under the Trade Competition Act B.E. 2560 (2017), partly made up for the absence of a single, codified franchising law in the country and offered valuable direction on how franchisors and franchisees should operate in compliance with Thai law. One of the most significant conditions introduced by the original guidelines in February 2020 was a requirement for franchisors to provide a right of first refusal to their existing franchisees before opening a new franchise outlet within current franchisees’ operating vicinity. An update to the guidelines addressing the right of first refusal was issued in August 2020. Most recently, a second update was announced on July 13, 2021. It was published in the Government Gazette on August 19, 2021, and came into force on the following day. The August 2021 update further revised this provision, and the updated guidelines now adopt a less restrictive approach for franchisors in relation to this first-refusal requirement. Under the updated guidelines, a franchisor who decides to open a new outlet, whether it will be operated by the franchisor or by another franchisee or person, must notify the existing franchisee located in closest proximity to the intended location, and provide the franchisee with a right of first refusal for a period of 30 days. However, the franchisor does not have to provide the closest franchisee with a right of first refusal if the franchisee’s existing performance does not meet the franchisor’s criteria as specified and communicated to the franchisee in advance. In determining what

Background In Thailand, as in other countries, there are many possible legal grounds for the cancellation of registered trademarks. The non-use ground, under Section 63 of the Trademark Act, has long been one of the most challenging grounds for petitioners to achieve. Section 63 provides that any interested party can ask the Board of Trademarks to cancel a trademark registration if they can provide proof that, at the time of the application, the proprietor of the mark had no intent of using it for the designated goods. The party requesting cancellation must also show that, in the three years prior to the cancellation request, the mark had not been used in good faith for the goods for which it is registered. The proprietor of the trademark can defend itself against the cancellation request by proving that non-use was unintentional and was due to “exceptional circumstances in the trade”. One of the reasons why non-use cancellation has been challenging in Thailand is that the Trademark Act does not prescribe the exact timeframe within which a mark must be used after it has been registered. Therefore, in some cases the Board of Trademarks found that the mere argument that the trademark owner had plans to use the mark in the future was suf cient to dismiss a non-use cancellation petition, even though the owner did not provide any proof to verify this. Recent Board of Trademarks decision In this case, a petitioner’s trademark application was rejected by the trademark registrar for being confusingly similar to a registered trademark. The petitioner then led a request for non-use cancellation against the cited trademark. At the same time, the petitioner decided to remove from its own trademark application the services that appeared to overlap with some of the goods connected to the registered trademark.

Patent is an essential piece of the amended Law on Intellectual Property (“Amended IP Law”), which was passed by the National Assembly of Vietnam on June 16, 2022, and will take effect on January 1, 2023 (except for the regulation on protection of experimental data for agrochemical products, which will take delayed effect on January 14, 2024). Among the amended and supplemented contents of the Amended IP Law, there are notable patent-related amendments to Article 60 on assessing the novelty of inventions and Article 96 on grounds for invalidating patent protection titles. We discuss these changes below. Secret Prior Art Under Article 60.1 A significant amendment to Clause 1, Article 60 of the Amended IP Law on the novelty of inventions is to broaden the scope under which an invention can be considered to have lost its novelty. For the first time in Vietnam, “secret prior art” –a patent application with an earlier filing date or priority date but published on or after the filing date or priority date of an examined patent application – is introduced as a prior art document. In the diagram above, at the time of filing of the A2 application, secret prior art A1 has been filed but not yet published, making it inaccessible to the public. At this point, only the A1 applicant and the IP Office are aware of the A1 application. Under the current provisions of the 2005 IP Law, as amended in 2009 and 2019, the A1 patent application is not eligible to be a prior art document when assessing the novelty of A2. However, based on the “first-to-file principle” and the principle of priority, the IP Office has still had other approaches to bar the patentability of an A2 patent application if there is such an A1 application. By

The recently approved comprehensive revisions to Vietnam’s Law on Intellectual Property (“Amended IP Law”) mark the most significant changes to Vietnam’s intellectual property regime since the last time the IP Law was revised more than a decade ago, in 2009, affecting 80 out of 222 articles and introducing 12 new ones. The National Assembly of Vietnam approved the Amended IP Law on June 16, 2022, and, except for a few provisions, it will take effect on January 1, 2023. Some notable points of the revised law regarding trademark matters include: 1. Protection of Sound Marks To fulfill Vietnam’s commitments as part of the CPTPP, the Amended IP Law adds sound marks to the list of signs eligible for protection as trademarks. However, to more easily examine these non-traditional marks, the law provides that sound marks must be able to be presented in graphical representations. Article 73.7 was also supplemented to include a ground for refusal of sound marks that comprise “copies [in whole or part] of copyrighted works, unless with consent from the copyright holders”. This provision is wide-reaching and may be used in many cases apart from those involving sound marks, and it is expected to better secure copyright in broad terms. 2. Definition of Well-Known Mark Article 4.20 modifies the definition of a well-known mark to mean one that is “widely known by the relevant sectors of the public in the territory of Vietnam” instead of the old general definition of “widely known by consumers throughout the territory of Vietnam”. This new definition is in line with international standards, and with this positive step, and the chances of trademark owners having their marks recognized as well-known marks in Vietnam should increase. The Amended IP Law also clarifies that well-known status must be acquired before the filing date