You are using an outdated browser and your browsing experience will not be optimal. Please update to the latest version of Microsoft Edge, Google Chrome or Mozilla Firefox. Install Microsoft Edge

January 22, 2016

Protecting Your Brands and Trademarks in the Asean Economic Community

Subscribe to Updates
Bangkok Post, Corporate Counsellor Column

The Asean Economic Community (AEC) officially came into force on December 31, 2015, ushering in promises of change that businesses should adequately prepare for. Among these preparations is the resolute need to protect your intellectual property and be aware of any potential pitfalls. In this article, we discuss brand protection in the AEC and other issues important to brand owners.

Registering a Trademark

To fully protect your brand or trademark throughout ASEAN, you must register it in every AEC member country. For your brand to be registrable as a trademark, all the following main criteria must be met, but they may differ slightly from country to country:

  • The mark must be sufficiently distinctive. A distinctive mark is one that is not descriptive of the goods or services bearing the mark—for example, if you plan to use a mark in a restaurant or food business, your trademark should not directly refer to the characteristics or qualities of restaurants or food. Terms such as “delicious,” “great,” and “food” are not registrable.
  • The mark must not be forbidden under the trademark law of the designated countries. For example, a geographical name such as Siam or Bangkok is not registrable in Thailand.
  • The mark cannot be identical or similar to marks registered by others. You can conduct a trademark search to determine whether the applied-for mark is identical or similar to a prior-registered mark.

Once these criteria are fulfilled and you file a trademark application, it can take anywhere from 2 to 24 months for a trademark registration certificate to be issued, depending on the country. In Brunei, Indonesia, Malaysia, the Philippines, Thailand, and Vietnam, it takes 18-24 months to complete the trademark registration process, while in Cambodia, Laos, and Singapore it takes 8 to 12 months. In Myanmar, there is no concrete law on trademark registration, and so trademark protection is obtained through registering a declaration of ownership, which takes 2 to 4 months.

Territorial Considerations

The protection of a trademark is territorial—the rights of a trademark are enforceable only in the countries where your mark is registered. Once a trademark is registered, the protection will last for ten years, and you can renew it indefinitely. In Myanmar, registering a declaration of ownership will grant protection for three years.

First Come, First Served

Legal protection in AEC member countries is generally granted to the first person filing a trademark application for registration. Therefore, if you would like to obtain full trademark protection for your marks and avoid possible obstacles such as similarities to previously registered marks, you should be the first to file a trademark application for registration in the designated countries.

Unauthorized Use

Most international disputes over trademarks are caused by an unauthorized trademark registration by a trademark owner’s potential foreign business partner, former foreign distributor, or supplier. A dispute often arises when the trademark owner files an application in its own name and finds out the applied-for trademark cannot be registered because it is identical or confusingly similar to a previously registered trademark.

If you are a trademark owner faced with this situation, you may be able to negotiate with the infringing party to assign the trademark registration to your name. Where a settlement cannot be reached, you can file a lawsuit against the owner of the unauthorized registration. In any event, neither scenario is desirable, as you would need to waste both time and money to secure your trademark.

To lessen the possibilities of unauthorized trademark registration and disputes, you should immediately file applications to register your trademarks in your own name in the countries where you may potentially conduct business or establish a manufacturing base. This should be done even if you are just in the preliminary stage of ongoing business discussions with your potential partners, distributors, or suppliers. An ounce of prevention is worth a pound of cure.

Download Full Article
Related Professionals

Practices

Intellectual Property

Location

RELATED INSIGHTS​ 

June 10, 2026
In March 2026, the Intellectual Property Office of Vietnam (IP Office) issued a decision refusing a trademark application after considering an opposition based primarily on copyright grounds. The outcome is noteworthy because the foreign brand owner had neither trademark registrations nor applications in Vietnam at the time the opposition was filed, and the IP Office has historically applied a stringent approach to oppositions relying on copyright. The Opposition Maurten is a well-known Swedish sports nutrition brand recognized globally for its innovative hydrogel technology, which is designed to help endurance athletes fuel more effectively without gastrointestinal discomfort. The brand’s distinctive logo is characterized by clean lines and a bold black-and-white color scheme, and has long been associated with the company’s performance products. The brand’s logo is displayed above. An identical mark was filed for registration by a Vietnamese trademark squatter. In 2023, a Vietnamese individual filed an application for registration of an identical mark (Application No. 4-2023-38668), a practice commonly observed in Vietnam as trademark squatting. The brand owner engaged Tilleke & Gibbins to assist with strategy and filing an opposition to the mark. At the time, Maurten had no trademark rights or meaningful use in Vietnam, and global marketing data showed only modest figures without any local presence. Thus, to convince the IP Office to refuse the squatter’s application, instead of relying on trademark rights or use evidence, the opposition strategy centered on the copyright protection of the logo itself, as copyright arises automatically in Vietnam upon creation of the work and does not require registration. (It is worth noting, however, that the IP Office has traditionally been cautious in accepting copyright as a basis for refusing trademark applications.) On September 24, 2024, an opposition was filed on three main grounds: confusing similarity, copyright infringement of the artistic work,
Read More
June 10, 2026
For multinational franchisors operating in Thailand, a key risk after franchise termination is that former outlets may continue operating in ways that could easily mislead consumers into believing they remain within the authorized network. To justify such operations, former franchisees often argue that the termination was invalid or ineffective. As a result, these cases are often treated as contractual disputes, making it difficult for franchisors to obtain injunctive relief before a final judgment confirms that the termination was lawful. Franchisors face significant commercial and reputational harm during lengthy proceedings, including consumer confusion, disruption to franchise restructuring, and damage to brand reputation and customer trust. In an encouraging development, the Thai court in a 2025 case responded to the problem of unauthorized post-termination franchise operations by granting interim relief, recognizing broader brand and consumer harm, and awarding substantial damages, highlighting a successful litigation strategy of framing the dispute not merely as a contractual termination issue but as trademark infringement causing ongoing commercial injury. The Subway Case From December 2024 to mid-2025, an unauthorized “Subway®” franchise operation in Thailand attracted substantial public and media attention. Reports and online discussions about unauthorized Subway® stores circulated widely after complaints arose about food quality and customer experience at certain outlets that were allegedly operating after their franchise rights had expired. Because these stores continued to use Subway® trademarks, trade dress, and overall commercial appearance, many consumers were unable to distinguish them from authorized operations, resulting in reputational risks and customer confusion that affected the franchisor’s brand and franchise system in Thailand. Subway treated this matter with the utmost seriousness and moved promptly to protect its brand, franchise system, and customers. It filed a civil action with the IP&IT Court seeking a permanent injunction and damages. During the proceedings, the court granted a preliminary injunction
Read More
May 22, 2026
Intellectual property specialists from Tilleke & Gibbins in Vietnam have contributed an updated Intellectual Property Transactions in Vietnam overview for Thomson Reuters Practical Law, an online publication that provides comprehensive legal guides for jurisdictions worldwide. The Vietnam overview was authored by Linh Thi Mai Nguyen, Thanh Phuong Vu, Chi Lan Dang, Son Thai Hoang, and Duc Anh Tran. The chapter provides a high-level examination of key aspects of IP transactions law in Vietnam, including IP assignment and licensing, research and development collaborations, IP in mergers and acquisitions (M&A), lending and taking security over intellectual property rights, settlement agreements, employee- and consultant-created IP, 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, trade marks, copyright, design rights, trade secrets, confidential information, and domain names in Vietnam. IP licensing: Scope, formalities, and recordal requirements for licensing patents, trade marks, copyright, design rights, and trade secrets. Research and development collaborations: Treatment of improvements, derivatives, and joint ownership of IP, including exploitation and enforcement issues. IP aspects of M&A and security: Due diligence, warranties, transfer formalities, and taking security over intellectual property rights. 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 seeking comparative insight into transactional IP issues across multiple jurisdictions. To view the latest version of the Intellectual Property Transactions in Vietnam overview, please visit the Practical Law website and enroll in the free Practical Law trial to gain full access.
Read More
May 13, 2026
Laos has significantly broadened its industrial property administrative review framework, most notably by extending it to cover copyright and related rights for the first time. Decision No. 0306/IC on the Administrative Resolution of Disputes Concerning Industrial Property Registration, New Plant Variety Registration, and Copyright and Related Rights Recordation took effect on April 24, 2026, replacing the previous rules from 2023, which had covered only industrial property and new plant variety matters. Decision No. 0306/IC governs how Laos’ Department of Intellectual Property (DIP) and provincial offices handle formal challenges to industrial property registrations and applications. The proceedings covered include oppositions to pending applications, appeals of refused applications, requests for cancellation of existing registrations, and—newly—disputes concerning the recordation and interpretation of copyright and related rights. These administrative proceedings within the DIP are heard by a government-appointed Administrative Dispute Resolution Committee, which functions similarly to the opposition and review boards found in other jurisdictions. Key Changes Decision No. 0306/IC covers four categories of administrative proceedings: Oppositions: Third-party challenges to a pending industrial property application before it is granted. Refusal appeals: Challenges to the DIP’s decision to refuse their application. Cancellation or deletion requests: Applications to invalidate an existing registered right on the grounds that it should not have been granted. Copyright and related rights disputes: Challenges to or interpretations of copyright and related rights recordations, including determinations of whether a work qualifies for copyright protection under Lao law. The most significant development is the committee’s new jurisdiction over copyright matters. The committee is now empowered to resolve disputes concerning copyright and related rights recordation—this includes the authority to determine whether a work qualifies for copyright protection and to interpret the scope of an existing recordation. Parties who believe a competitor has improperly recorded copyright over a work, or who wish to contest
Read More