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​ 

August 4, 2026
Intellectual property (IP) protection sometimes hinges on fame and recognition. However, this alone will not always be sufficient to overcome an IP dispute when it involves contractual obligations or registered rights. Below are five cases from around the world that tackle some of the basic issues in IP registration, ownership, commercialization, and enforcement. 1. USA: Taylor Swift Trademark Application Refused Taylor Swift recently filed a trademark application to register “The Life of a Showgirl,” which is the title of her 12th studio album. When examining a trademark application, the examiner considers various factors before deciding whether it should be registered. One of these factors is whether there is a likelihood of confusion (i.e., would a regular consumer mistake the origin of the trademark). In Taylor Swift’s case, the US Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO) decided that that there would be a risk of confusion. This decision was based on the existing registered trademark, “Confessions of a Showgirl,” owned by Maren Wade, which was registered in 2015. The USPTO refused Taylor Swift’s application based on the shared key distinctive element “of a showgirl,” the lack of sufficient distinguishing terms, the marks being used in overlapping markets (entertainment and performances), and because consumers may assume a common commercial source. Maren Wade then filed a lawsuit in California against Taylor Swift and her affiliated companies, arguing that Taylor Swfit’s branding is confusingly similar in structure, wording, and overall commercial impression to her registered mark. She is also drawing on the USPTO’s refusal of Taylor Swift’s application to support her argument of a likelihood of confusion. A judgment has not yet been reached in this case, but it serves as an important reminder of the importance of satisfying the essential elements required for IP registration. 2. Australia: Katy Perry v. Katie Perry In
Read More
July 27, 2026
Vietnam’s new E-Commerce Law, which took effect on 1 July 2026 along with its implementing Decree No. 248/2026/ND-CP (Decree 248), marks a significant development in the country’s approach to online intellectual property (IP) enforcement, reflecting a clear shift from a reactive model of intermediary liability to one that expects platforms to play a more active role in preventing infringement. From notice-and-takedown to platform responsibility The most significant change introduced by the E-Commerce Law is the transformation of the legal role of e-commerce platforms. The existing safe harbor provisions under the IP Law and the copyright notice-and-takedown regime established by Decree 17/2023/ND-CP (Decree 17) largely required intermediaries to act only after receiving notice of infringement. Once infringing content had been removed, the platform’s legal obligation was generally considered fulfilled. The new legislation adopts a fundamentally different approach. Article 17 of the E-Commerce Law requires intermediary platforms to screen information relating to goods and services before publication in order to prevent listings involving counterfeit or IP-infringing goods, and goods of unknown origin. Rather than relying exclusively on complaints from rights holders, platforms are now expected to implement preventive measures before infringing listings become publicly available. Decree 248 further requires platforms to update keyword filters based on recommendations issued by competent authorities. These filtering mechanisms are intended to prevent prohibited listings from appearing on the platform and represent a further move away from a purely complaint-driven enforcement model. The legislation also introduces Vietnam’s first statutory stay-down obligation. Under the E-Commerce Law and Decree 248, major digital platforms must maintain automated systems capable of reviewing, warning against, and removing unlawful listings while also implementing measures to prevent repeat violations, defined under Decree 248 as conduct that has previously been identified and handled by the platform, but continues to recur. This obligation addresses one
Read More
July 27, 2026
Tilleke & Gibbins’ intellectual property specialists have authored the Thailand chapter of Trade Secrets 2026 from Chambers and Partners. This global guide examines the legal frameworks governing trade secret protection, enforcement, and litigation across jurisdictions worldwide. The Thailand chapter provides a comprehensive overview of the country’s legal regime for protecting confidential business information, covering the legal framework, trade secret misappropriation, litigation procedures, remedies, and dispute resolution. Some topics covered include: Protectable trade secrets Reasonable measures to maintain secrecy Employee confidentiality Trade secret licensing Civil and criminal remedies Litigation procedures and injunctions Damages and other remedies Mediation and arbitration The guide also examines practical issues relating to safeguarding trade secrets, defending against allegations of misappropriation, and managing trade secret disputes in Thailand. Chambers and Partners’ Global Practice Guides provide in-house counsel with authoritative commentary on practical legal issues affecting business, enabling readers to compare legislation and procedures across multiple jurisdictions. The Thailand chapter of Trade Secrets 2026 is available as a PDF through the button below. The full guide can be accessed for free on the Chambers and Partners website.
Read More
July 27, 2026
In March 2025, Thailand’s Central Intellectual Property and International Trade Court (IP&IT Court) issued a landmark judgment in favor of Luckin Coffee, China’s leading retail coffee chain. The judgment marked a significant turnaround following earlier trademark litigation involving Luckin Coffee from 2021 to 2023 that had generated widespread public attention and raised questions about the protection available to legitimate foreign brand owners in Thailand. In a significant subsequent development, Thailand’s Court of Appeal for Specialized Cases has now affirmed the IP&IT Court’s judgment in its entirety. The appellate decision brings clarity to one of Thailand’s most closely watched trademark disputes. Significantly, this is the first case in Thailand to formally recognize the trademark squatting principle. The Court of Appeal confirmed that Luckin Coffee has a better right to the disputed mark and ordered cancellation of the defendants’ trademark registration—a key application of the “better right” doctrine. The court also upheld the substantial damages awarded at first instance, providing important guidance on assessing harm from systematic trademark squatting. Award-Winning Judgment Affirmed in Its Entirety The significance of the first-instance judgment extended beyond the outcome for Luckin Coffee. The IP&IT Court judgment was subsequently recognized in the IP&IT Court’s Distinguished Judgment Awards in 2025, reflecting the complexity, novelty, and legal significance of the issues considered in the case. The defendants nevertheless appealed the judgment, challenging several key aspects of the IP&IT Court’s decision. Luckin Coffee continued to entrust Tilleke & Gibbins as their sole attorney to pursue the case at the appellate level. After considering the defendants’ appeal and Luckin Coffee’s submissions in response, the Court of Appeal affirmed the first-instance judgment in its entirety. The judgment was announced on July 8, 2026. Better Right to the Marks The Court of Appeal confirmed Luckin Coffee’s superior rights. The orders include cancellation
Read More