Intellectual property specialists from Tilleke & Gibbins in Thailand have contributed an updated Intellectual Property Transactions in Thailand overview for Thomson Reuters Practical Law, an online publication that provides comprehensive legal guides for jurisdictions worldwide. The Thailand overview was authored by Darani Vachanavuttivong, managing partner of Tilleke & Gibbins and managing director of the firm’s regional IP practice; Titikaan Ungbhakorn, senior associate and patent agent; and San Chaithiraphant, senior associate. The chapter delivers a high-level examination of critical aspects of IP law, including IP assignment and licensing, research and development collaborations, IP in mergers and acquisitions (M&A), securing loans with intellectual property rights, settlement agreements, employee-related IP issues, competition law, taxation, and non-tariff trade barriers. Key topics covered in the chapter include: IP assignment: Basis and formalities for assignments of patents, utility models, trademarks, copyright, design rights, trade secrets, confidential information, and domain names. IP licensing: Scope and formalities for licensing patents, utility models, trademarks, copyright, design rights, and trade secrets. Research and development collaborations: Management of improvements, derivatives, and joint ownership of IP. IP aspects of M&A: Due diligence and critical considerations during mergers and acquisitions. Practical Law, a legal reference resource from Thomson Reuters, publishes a range of guides for hundreds of jurisdictions and practice areas. The Intellectual Property Transactions Global Guide is a valuable resource for legal practitioners, covering numerous jurisdictions worldwide. To view the latest version of the Intellectual Property Transactions in Thailand overview, please visit the Practical Law website and enroll in the free Practical Law trial to gain full access.

Appeals of unfavorable decisions on protection in the IP field are very common in Vietnam. In 2023, there were 845 appeals filed at the IP Office, including 780 trademark appeals. In most cases, however, applicants view the appeal procedure as almost a last resort, as the lengthy examination process can lead to serious delays in appeal settlement. In fact, it can take four to seven years, or even longer, for an appeal to be resolved, and a disappointingly low number of cases are settled each year, despite the towering number of appeals pending. Nonetheless, there are reasons for optimism. Inspection and Appeal Department On 1 July 2024, the IP Office issued Decision No. 575/QD-SHTT promulgating the Regulations on Organization and Operation of the Inspection and Appeal Department – formerly the Enforcement and Appeal Department – whose functions include, among others, advising and assisting the Director General of the IP Office in resolving appeals related to the process of establishing IP rights. The Inspection and Appeal Department has the duty to handle appeals and denunciations related to the process of establishing IP rights, as well as requests for termination and cancellation of the validity of registrations. In addition, it can provide expert opinions, and appoint knowledgeable personnel to participate in the IP Office’s Advisory Council to settle appeals. While the renamed department’s responsibilities do not differ greatly, on paper, from those of the previous Enforcement and Appeal Department, the issuance of new regulations indicates the IP Office’s renewed focus on the importance of improving the appeal procedure. Scope of IP appeals expanded In addition, in November 2023, the Ministry of Science and Technology issued Circular No. 23/2023/TT-BKHCN (“Circular 23”) providing further guidance for implementation of the amended 2022 IP Law and its subordinate legislation. Article 35 of Circular 23 has

The landscape of intellectual property (IP) has transformed alongside advancements in technology, transitioning from traditional methods to modern online approaches. A growing number of IP infringers are moving their illegal activities to the online sphere, particularly through the sale of counterfeit goods on their websites, social media, or e-commerce platforms. In response to these shifting pressures, Thailand implemented the Computer-Related Crime Act B.E. 2550 (CCA) on July 18, 2007, and amended it in 2017, aiming to enhance the effectiveness of combating online infringement by empowering government officials to request that the court block computer data (called “website-blocking”) that infringes upon other parties’ intellectual property rights, as per section 20(3) of the CCA. From 2018 to May 2024, Thailand’s Criminal Court and Central Intellectual Property and International Trade Court have issued 53 orders to block more than 1,779 infringing URLs. One significant recent development is the Criminal Court’s establishment of the Technology Crime Division, which has been operating since April 1, 2024. Its purpose is to address criminal offenses that occur through electronic means, which should then be handled in an effective and prompt manner by judges who have expertise on technological crimes. In addition, several current measures to combat technology crime, including section 20(3) of the CCA, require court orders for the prevention of electronic criminal offenses or online infringement. The Technology Crime Division has the jurisdiction to consider and grant these orders, which will help expedite the approval process and ensure review by specialized judges. Scope of the Technology Crime Division The announcement of the establishment of the Technology Crime Division within the Criminal Court was published in the Government Gazette on March 18, 2024, with operations commencing on April 1, 2024. The Technology Crime Division is empowered to: Consider and adjudicate technology crime cases, except cases falling

In this chapter from Eversheds Sutherland’s Global Freezing Order Guide, attorneys from Tilleke & Gibbins provide answers to common questions regarding civil freezing orders and their particulars in Thailand. 1. Are freezing orders (or their equivalent referred to below) available in civil legal proceedings in this jurisdiction and what is their effect? Yes. The effect of a freezing order is that the respondent is prohibited from transferring or disposing of the assets referred to in the freezing order until a specified time (for example, a further hearing, a judgment or payment) or a further order of the Court. The property subject to a freezing order may include the property in dispute or the respondent’s property, including money or property owed to the respondent by a third party. Thai law is silent on the issue of whether a freezing order issued by a Thai Court could potentially apply to assets located outside of Thailand. In light of this, in practice, a Thai Court is unlikely to include assets located outside of Thailand in a freezing order. It is possible that a Thai Court could order a respondent over whom it has jurisdiction not to transfer any property or other assets located abroad, however, enforceability may be difficult, with limited consequences where the respondent refused to comply with such an order. 2. Are other interim orders commonly made in conjunction with a freezing (or equivalent) order? No. The Court does not typically place obligations on the respondent to provide disclosure of the nature, value and location of his, her or its assets, with the onus being on the applicant to provide the Court with the information available. 3. Briefly what is the relevant legal test? The applicant has to prove that there is good cause for the complaint. The applicant must