Lawyers from Tilleke & Gibbins and its associate firm TGVN provided the Vietnam chapter of the Practical Law Patent Litigation Global Guide. The 2022 edition provides an overview of how patent disputes are handled in 33 jurisdictions worldwide. Tilleke & Gibbins also contributed the Thailand chapter of the guide. The Vietnam chapter of the guide covers the following topics in Practical Law’s signature Q&A format: Sources of law Court system Substantive law Parties to litigation Enforcement options Competition and antitrust Procedure in civil courts Preliminary relief Final remedies Appeal procedure Litigation costs Standard essential patents (SEPs); fair, reasonable, and nondiscriminatory (FRAND) licensing; and antisuit injunctions Practical Law, which is owned by Thomson Reuters, is the world’s leading legal know-how resource for business lawyers, publishing a wide range of guides covering hundreds of jurisdictions and practice areas. The full Vietnam overview from the Patent Litigation Global Guide can be accessed on the Practical Law website.

Thailand’s Personal Data Protection Act B.E. 2562 (2019) (PDPA) entered into force in full on June 1, 2022. The PDPA, which contains similarities to the EU’s General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR) introduces obligations and restrictions relating to the collection, use, and disclosure of personal data in Thailand. While the new law applies to franchisors and franchisees in the same way that it applies to other businesses, there are a number of issues that are of specific importance in franchise businesses. As franchisors and franchisees have the power and duty to make decisions concerning the collection, use, and disclosure of customers’ and employees’ personal data in the course of their operations, they are considered “data controllers” under the PDPA. The Trade Competition Commission of Thailand, via its Notification on the Guidelines for the Consideration of Unfair Trade Practices in Franchise Businesses issued under the Trade Competition Act B.E. 2560 (2017), defines a franchise relationship as one which, among others, involves an element of control by the franchisor over the business operations of the franchisee. It follows then that in some situations, franchisees’ collection, use, and disclosure of personal data will be according to the instructions of their franchisors. In such circumstances, a franchisee will be considered a “data processor” under the PDPA. Whether acting as data controllers or data processors, franchisors and franchisees must nonetheless comply with the requirements of the PDPA in the course of their operations. To ensure their activities are in compliance with the law, franchise businesses should consider five major actions: 1. Auditing existing data collection and retention practices Whether operating online or via a brick and mortar shop, it is increasingly common for franchise businesses to store and process customers’ personal data. This may include the storage and transmission of credit card information for auto-billing

The Indonesian government has launched a number of strategic initiatives aimed at getting the country removed from the Priority Watch List in the US Trade Representative’s annual Special 301 Report on Intellectual Property Protection. In trying to leave behind this ignominious status—which has been stubbornly persistent for over 30 years—Indonesia’s Directorate General of Intellectual Property (DGIP) is leading an IP Operations Task Force consisting of five ministries and agencies, including the National Agency of Drug and Food Control (BPOM), Customs, the State Police, and the Ministry of Communications and Information (MOCI). According to statistics from the task force, 554 infringement cases were handled by the police and the IP Office in 2019–2021, with trademark infringement and copyright infringement being most prevalent. Year on year, the number of trademark infringement cases increased from 90 in 2020 to 137 in 2021, while copyright infringement cases over the same period decreased slightly, from 42 to 38. While the cases occurring in physical markets remain high, the battleground has now expanded to online platforms and social media. Indonesia has embraced digital technology with enthusiasm, and the country’s citizens are among the world’s most avid users of e-commerce, social media, and other mobile apps. Research from Google, Temasek, and Bain & Company indicates sizable growth in Indonesia’s digital economy, from USD 47 billion in 2020 to USD 70 billion in 2021—a digital marketplace that now includes more than 158 million e-commerce customers. Separately, the MOCI reported suspension of 1,745 websites and other infringing online content from 2017 to 2019. Meanwhile, the DGIP banned hundreds of problematic e-commerce portals related to trademark infringement during 2019. There is no official report on recent online infringement cases; however, the numbers are predicted to rise in tandem with the increasing use of online platforms. Aside from these enforcement

TV game shows play an important role in the Vietnamese entertainment industry, as in the global market. Many well-known game shows from other countries have been franchised or licensed for broadcast in Vietnam, including Who Wants to Be a Millionaire?, Vietnam’s Got Talent, and The Voice, drawing large audiences and generating billions of VND from commercialized activities. Other popular shows have been developed domestically—some wholly original, but many bearing a heavy resemblance to existing shows from other markets, with similar gameplay, similar sets, and even similar names. This raises an interesting question from the intellectual property perspective as to whether owners or creators of game shows can charge these copycat shows with infringement. In other words, are format rights recognized as a copyright and can a game show be protected under intellectual property law? Globally, this is a question without a clear and explicit answer. The Format Recognition and Protection Association (FRAPA), a trade association formed in 2000 to advocate recognition of television formats as intellectual property, strongly believes that format rights are protectable and has been working to convince courts and lawmakers around the world to define these rights under law. However, recognition of format rights is still very limited, and is often determined on a case-by-case basis. A common argument from legal experts is that because the format of a game show is only composed of ideas, which are not protected by law, it cannot be the subject of copyright (for reference, Green v Broadcasting Corporation of New Zealand in 1989). However, others argue that if the format of a game show is an intellectual creation and contains key elements which have unique originality, and it is not just a combination of general and commonplace elements, it can be protected under copyright law (for reference, Meakin v