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

June 15, 2020

Southeast Asia’s IP Offices Respond to the COVID-19 Pandemic

Subscribe to Updates
Informed Counsel

The intellectual property offices of Southeast Asia have implemented measures ranging from deadline extensions to expanded online services to cope with office closures and other issues brought about by the COVID-19 pandemic. Below, we summarize the responses in our jurisdictions. This information reflects the current status as of June 1, 2020, and is subject to change.

Cambodia

The Department of Intellectual Property Rights (DIPR) and the Department of Industrial Property have yet to announce any official measures to extend or waive deadlines falling within the pandemic period.

The Cambodian DIPR is operating as normal. Trademark agents are encouraged to use the online filing system, which is available for:

  • Filing new trademark applications;
  • Payment of registration fees;
  • Filing affidavits of use or non-use;
  • Filing trademark renewals;
  • Filing recordals of change of agent; and
  • Filing responses to preliminary rejections.

For post-registration actions, as a general practice, it is possible to file an application or request with copies of the required documents. The originals of the required documents can be submitted within two months of the filing date. If a copy of any required document is not available, it is also possible to file an application or request with a cover letter that states what documents will be provided later and the reason the documents are not now available. However, for an office action concerning a Madrid application, a request for an extension of time must be filed if a copy of a required document is not available.

In addition, the DIPR revised the document requirements for filing affidavits of use or non-use due to the COVID-19 pandemic. While an official announcement has not yet been made, the new affidavit-filing requirements are already in practice. The required documents are as follows:

  • Notarized power of attorney;
  • Copy of the latest trademark certificate; and
  • Evidence of use (if filing affidavit of use).   

The Department of Industrial Property is still operating normally. All agents are required to file new applications and submit additional documents according to standard in-person procedures, as the department does not have an online filing system.

Indonesia

Although physical distancing restrictions are in force, IP owners are still able to exercise their rights by registering them through the online system of the Directorate General of Intellectual Property (DGIP). In addition, although courts have postponed some cases, online trials are available and ongoing, subject to the discretion of the presiding judge in each case.   

The DGIP issued its latest notification on the limitation of physical contact due to the COVID-19 outbreak on May 13, 2020, extending the closure of physical counters until May 29. During this period, all DGIP officers are working from home and accessing the system remotely, optimizing the online channels for IP matters. These conditions will remain in effect until at least May 29, 2020 (under Circular Letter No. HKI-OT.02.02-19, which may be subject to extension).

The online system remains available for new trademark application filings, responses to office actions, recordals, appeals, and oppositions and rebuttals. For all online filings, the original deadlines remain unchanged. Meanwhile, the Trademark Appeal Commission has declared that any appeal deadline falling within the closure period will be extended until the situation is back to normal.   

The online system also remains available for:

  • New patent applications.
  • Responses to office actions issued for patent applications filed prior to August 19, 2019 (which must be submitted through the online filing system and no special extension is available). Any failure to submit formality documents must be communicated to the DGIP.
  • Official fees for patent annuities (an official receipt will not be provided until the DGIP counter reopens).

For patent applications filed before August 19, 2019, excess claims cannot be paid through online filing. Therefore, excess claims can be paid when the DGIP counter reopens.

The online filing of copyrights and industrial designs can be conducted normally during this period.

Offices of the National Agency of Drug and Food Control (NADFC) remain closed for walk-in filing and consultation until further notice. The last day that their counters were open for service was March 12, 2020, and they are now officially closed for on-site services until further notice. During this period, the NADFC officials remain available for inquiry via email, messaging applications, or phone call, though wait times may vary.

Judges have discretion on whether to hold or postpone cases based on their assessment of the level of urgency. Therefore, disputing parties in IP cases need to check with the Commercial Court to determine whether the examination of the case is suspended or not.

Laos

On March 29, 2020, the prime minister issued Order No.06/PM, which imposed strict lockdown measures. minister’s order, the Lao Department of Intellectual Property (Lao DIP) would not be open to the public until April 20, 2020. On April 15, this closure was extended until May 4, in response to an announcement made by the prime minister’s office to extend the lockdown period. During these times, the Lao DIP did not accept any requests, and all deadlines falling within this period were automatically postponed to May 4.   

Since May 4, the operation of the Lao DIP has returned to normal. Laos is still transitioning out of the lockdown, so if more cases of the virus are found, it is possible that the stricter measures could return.   

The Lao DIP remains tolerant toward late submission of original documents—especially for those sent from abroad (submission of hard copies is still the norm in Laos.) For registration, original documents can be filed within 60 days of the filing date of the copies, and applicants can make an official request to formally extend the deadline to file the original documents for up to an additional 60 days.

Myanmar   

On March 25, 2020, the President’s Office issued a letter containing measures to mitigate the potential impact of COVID-19 on government offices. The letter ordered government offices and departments to reduce their staff by 50% on a rotating basis, report any suspected cases of COVID-19 in their offices or residences to the Ministry of Health and Sport, reduce visitors from other regions, and not leave the area of their posting except in the course of their duties or with official permission.   

With this letter, the President’s Office signaled its intention for government functions to continue during the COVID-19 outbreak and sent a clear message that, despite the small number of reported cases to date, Myanmar is taking significant precautionary measures.    

While the impact of the current crisis has affected IP operations to some degree, the government is continuing to move toward implementation of the groundbreaking suite of intellectual property laws passed in 2019, announcing the formation of the Central Committee for Intellectual Property Rights (CCIPR) via Notification No.18/2020 dated March 6, 2020. The committee is expected to push forward with implementation of the new laws shortly.

Thailand

The Thai Department of Intellectual Property (Thai DIP) took action to deal with the potential impact of COVID-19 on March 24, 2020, when it issued a notification to address the need for extension of some deadlines due to the growing outbreak.

The Thai DIP notification stated that persons affected by the outbreak of COVID-19 who are unable to submit applications or perform other relevant IP-related tasks within the time period prescribed by law may request an extension of the deadline.

The notification also outlines the justifications that may be used to support the request for extension, including conditions such as diagnosis of illness, exposure, or having been in affected areas. The extension also needs to be supported by the following relevant documentation:

  • Copy of applicant’s passport;
  • Copy of doctor’s certificate or document showing medical diagnosis;
  • Any other evidence showing domicile or residence in an affected area;
  • Evidence showing that the applicant is an infected patient, person close to an infected patient, or has been in a country with an ongoing outbreak of the disease;
  • Any other evidence showing that the applicant was affected by the situation of COVID-19; and
  • Any other evidence showing the date that the circumstances have come to an end.

While the situation regarding the virus has certainly been improving, and various tentative reopenings and relaxations of restrictions have begun, the country nonetheless remains under a state of emergency and is expected to act quickly if conditions change.

Vietnam

The Intellectual Property Office of Vietnam (formerly the NOIP), like most government agencies and enterprises in the country, was closed for nearly a month while Vietnam implemented strict measures to slow the spread of the COVID-19 pandemic.

To address issues related to the closure, the IP Office issued Notice No. 5277/TB-SHTT on March 31, 2020, with the following main provisions:

  • Deadline extensions: All IP-related deadlines (specifically those for “establishment of industrial property rights”) falling between March 30 and April 30 would automatically be extended until May 30.
  • Patent Prosecution Highway (PPH) between Japan and Vietnam: The IP Office would start receiving PPH requests on May 4, instead of April 1, as planned before.
  • Receipt of documents and fees: Starting on April 1, 2020, the IP Office would only accept IP documents from applicants by post or through the online filing system; the payment of fees could be made by post or by bank transfer.

As of April 24, 2020, the IP Office had reopened and was operating normally.

Related Professionals

Practices

Intellectual Property

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