In 2023, Vietnam’s Intellectual Property Rights Infringement Prevention Cooperation Program reported that 776 cases of IPR infringement were resolved nationwide. Of these, 546 were addressed through administrative measures, while criminal proceedings were initiated in just five cases. These statistics clearly show that administrative measures overwhelmingly dominate the response to counterfeit goods, with criminal actions being relatively rare. This raises an intriguing question: Why do IPR holders prefer administrative routes over criminal measures in Vietnam? And what challenges and obstacles make criminal enforcement less commonly pursued in these cases? Overlapping legal provisions Under Vietnam’s Penal Code, two key offenses address counterfeit goods: Manufacturing and trading in counterfeit goods under Article 192. Manufacturing and trading in industrial property rights-infringing goods under Article 226. Both provisions regulate counterfeit goods, yet they suffer from a lack of clear definitions and guidelines for application. Article 192 does not explicitly define “counterfeit goods”. Instead, authorities refer to Article 3.7 of Decree No. 98/2020/ND-CP, as amended, which outlines several categories of counterfeit goods, including: (i) utility counterfeits (goods not meeting normal expectations of usage or function), (ii) substandard goods, (iii) counterfeit goods based on misrepresentation, and (iv) counterfeit stamps, labels, and packaging. Meanwhile, Article 226 specifically deals with counterfeit goods that infringe trademark rights. These “trademark-counterfeit goods” are defined under Article 213.2 of the IP Law as goods or packaging bearing trademarks or signs that are identical or confusingly similar to protected trademarks for the same goods, used without the trademark owner’s permission. In this regard, “counterfeit goods” and “trademark-counterfeit goods” are treated as distinct, non-overlapping concepts, each corresponding to a separate offense. However, in practice, there is often a gray area where the two overlap. Many cases involve infringing goods that meet the criteria for both categories, allowing authorities to apply both regulations simultaneously. For

With the emergence of online marketplaces and e-commerce platforms, consumers have transformed their ways of engaging in transactions, gaining unprecedented convenience and access to a vast array of products. These platforms allow small businesses and individual entrepreneurs to reach a wider audience in an increasingly competitive market. Challenges in Tracing Online Infringers The growth of these online marketplaces and e-commerce platforms has also given rise to challenges, particularly in locating the actual identity of online infringers and combating intellectual property infringement activities. Online infringers often take advantage of anonymity to offer counterfeit products for sale on their platforms. Not only do these online infringing activities violate the rights of IP owners, but they also involve the sale of counterfeit products that are often manufactured with inferior quality and may pose significant risks to consumers’ health and safety. In today’s modern world, tracing the actual identity of online infringers proves challenging, as infringers adopt numerous methods to conceal their identity. The most frequently used method is using a fake name and address when dispatching parcels to consumers, making it difficult to verify the seller’s identity and the location of the sender on the parcel package. Some infringers exploit cash-on-delivery logistics services to prevent the disclosure of their identity, such as bank account numbers and bank account owner names, which would typically be required for direct payments. Instead, the shipping company collects the payment on their behalf, allowing the infringers to remain anonymous and making it more difficult to find their actual identity. Thailand’s New Regulations on Cash-on-Delivery Logistics Services Recently, the Committee on Contracts of Thailand’s Consumer Protection Board announced the Notification regarding Stipulation of Cash-on-Delivery Logistics Services as a Controlled-Receipt Business B.E. 2567 (2024) under the Consumer Protection Act B.E. 2522 (1979) in the Thai Royal Gazette dated July

Following the enactment of the Tax Administration Law (TAL), Myanmar’s Ministry of Planning and Finance has issued Notification No. 44/2024, which outlines directives and procedures for addressing violations of tax law provisions. These procedures, which came into force on June 13, 2024, primarily focus on three key areas: tax evasion, impeding tax administration, and failure to preserve secrecy. The notification primarily aims to address tax evasion, impeding tax administration, and failure to preserve secrecy, classifying these offenses as either subject to arrest without warrant or not. Notably, tax evasion is classified as an offense subject to arrest without warrant, while impeding tax administration and failure to preserve secrecy are not. The notification also prescribed the forms for notifying taxpayers before taking any action. Tax Evasion Tax evasion refers to a taxpayer who willfully evades the assessment, payment, or collection of tax. Penalties for such offenses include fines of MMK 250,000 (approx. USD 120) or 100% of the evaded tax (whichever is greater), imprisonment for up to seven years, or both. The enforcement process for tax evasion requires the chief officer of the township revenue department or an officer in charge (the tax authority) to assess the relevant documents and information provided by the taxpayer. If a taxpayer is found to be evading tax, the tax authority must send a notice in the prescribed form for verification within 15 days. Taxpayers may apply for a one-time extension of 15 days to submit requested documents and make disclosures. If the taxpayer cannot fulfill the requirements as instructed, the tax authority will seek approval from the director general of the Internal Revenue Department (IRD) for criminal proceedings as cognizable offences. Impeding Tax Administration and Failure to Preserve Secrecy Impeding tax administration refers to obstruction or attempted obstruction of taxation staff or officers

Tilleke & Gibbins has contributed the Thailand chapter to the 2024 edition of Litigation & Dispute Resolution from the Global Legal Insights (GLI) series published by Global Legal Group. This comprehensive guide provides detailed analysis of litigation and dispute resolution laws and regulations across multiple jurisdictions worldwide. Each chapter of the guide offers an in-depth examination of key aspects of litigation and dispute resolution, including: Efficiency and integrity of process Privilege and disclosure Evidence Costs and attorney fees Litigation funding Class actions Interim relief Enforcement of judgments/awards Cross-border litigation International arbitration Mediation and ADR Regulatory investigations The complete Thailand chapter, authored by counsel Michael Ramirez and associate Chayathorn Kruatao, is available as a PDF below. The Thailand chapter—and the full Litigation & Dispute Resolution guide—are also freely available on the GLI website.