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

March 6, 2019

Strategic IP Training in Targeted Southeast Asian Countries

Informed Counsel

As the issue of counterfeiting continues to evolve, savvy brand owners are taking innovative approaches to intellectual property protection to meet their shifting needs. One such approach aims to resolve a key issue faced by brand owners: the variable effectiveness of government officials in taking action against counterfeits. Companies face understandable frustration when they perceive that different government agencies or officials may be less effective in enforcing the law, and they too often feel as though this issue is outside of their control. But forward-thinking companies can help to change this. By providing educational instruction to the frontline officers and authorities that are directly involved in combatting counterfeiting, brand owners can help to improve the capabilities of the relevant officials, while also building an excellent relationship with the key agencies involved in the process.

Every year we arrange numerous training events for authorities across the region, in collaboration with leading brand owners, designing each session to include new and interesting issues that develop officers’ understanding of the problems that brand owners face. In creating these curricula, we work with our clients, and draw on our extensive experience in the field, to focus intensively on the relevant issues. In particular, we identify and target key details relating to product identification and characteristics that need unusually close attention, or that tend to be overlooked.

Training Government Stakeholders Across Southeast Asia   

During the past three years, Tilleke & Gibbins has arranged 18 such events attended by more than 1,200 officials from Cambodia, Laos, Myanmar, Thailand, and Vietnam. Participants not only included the officers directly involved with intellectual property enforcement, but also other relevant government authorities tasked with overseeing and implementing regulations under similar laws, such as health and regulatory bodies responsible for the administration of food and drugs.   

In 2018 alone, Tilleke & Gibbins, in collaboration with participating brands, cohosted several training events attended by authorities on the front line of counterfeit prevention in Southeast Asia, as detailed in the table below.

Government Authority Training Sessions – 2018

A lasting and positive outcome of these multilateral events has been the building and strengthening of truly collaborative relationships among the customs officers from the participating countries—an invaluable commodity in countries that share land borders. Building on the experience gained and relationships built in these sessions, in December 2018, the Royal Thai Customs Department, in collaboration with Tilleke & Gibbins and participating brands, cohosted a training event for 29 specially selected customs officers from Cambodia, Laos, Myanmar, Vietnam, and Thailand (collectively known as CLMVT). This training was part of “The Workshop on Trade Facilitation Agreement and Intellectual Property Rights for CLMVT,” which was organized by the Customs Academy and the Human Resources Management Bureau of the Royal Thai Customs Department. The presentations were conducted by representatives of the participating brand owners and by lawyers from Tilleke & Gibbins.

Working with Brand Owners
    In addition, officials are able to use these events to interact directly with brand owners proactively involved in anticounterfeiting activities. Representatives from several famous companies also attend each training event, representing diverse industries, including machinery, apparel, consumer goods, cosmetics, and other types of products, each of which is particularly vulnerable to counterfeiting in these strategic markets. Strong company participation provides expert insights related to their respective business fields, and even into specific examples of their products, thanks to a “mobile museum” of genuine and fake goods that we provide as a practical learning tool.     

Each participating brand is fully engaged with the officers during the training sessions, with brand representatives on hand to help attendees differentiate between the genuine brands and counterfeit goods, and to provide effective recognition techniques when inspecting them. As brands regularly launch new products, models, packaging designs, and other developments, it can be difficult for authorities—even those well-trained in specific product details—to stay abreast of the distinguishing features of a brand’s genuine products. This kind of involvement by brands is therefore essential, and the exchange of experiences between government agencies and the private sector can be the key to a sustainable effort to prevent the spread of counterfeits.

Impact   

The participants at these events are generally very engaged and respond to the speakers with interest and enthusiasm, inevitably leading to a lively question-and-answer session on product identification between the authorities, brand owners, and our lawyers. More importantly, the sessions provide a cooperative and transparent platform for the authorities and decision-makers from numerous Southeast Asian countries not only to share their experiences, but also to exchange information about the manufacturing sources and transportation routes of infringing goods.    

With the cooperation of the participating brands, the authorities are able to use these events to enhance their skills and judgment when conducting an initial inspection of any suspect goods, as well as develop a productive working relationship with the participating brand representatives to help with ongoing enforcement measures.    

During the training events we have held over many years, we have also built a strong, enduring, and trusted relationship with the intellectual property enforcement authorities, and we will continue to encourage and support them. We believe that the success of these training events will affect the scope of intellectual property protection in Southeast Asian countries in a positive manner for years to come.

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
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
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.
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