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​ 

July 13, 2026
When Decree No. 186/2026/ND-CP (Decree 186) takes effect on July 15, 2026, it will introduce the most significant reform of Vietnam’s administrative IP enforcement framework since Decree 99/2013/ND-CP was issued in 2013. These changes are expected to make administrative enforcement faster, more accessible, and better suited to the realities of modern IP disputes. Below are the principal reforms and their practical implications for rights holders and enforcement practitioners. The End of Notarization and Consular Legalization Among the most welcome procedural changes is the abolition of the notarization and consular legalization requirement for powers of attorney (POA) submitted in administrative enforcement proceedings. Under the previous regime, foreign rights holders were generally required to execute a POA, then have it notarized and consular legalized (if seeking customs recordal). In practice, this process frequently delayed enforcement by four to eight weeks, often long enough for infringing goods to disappear before authorities could intervene. Decree 186 removes this bottleneck, now requiring only an original or certified copy of the POA. If the document is in a foreign language, a Vietnamese translation is sufficient, provided it is certified by a competent authority or confirmed by the authorized Vietnamese IP representative. Consular legalization and notarization are no longer required. For rights holders, the practical impact is substantial. Administrative enforcement files that previously took weeks to prepare can now be completed in a matter of days, allowing much faster responses in time-sensitive matters such as warehouse raids, border interventions, and trade-fair enforcement. The decree also introduces a useful administrative simplification. Where an original POA has already been submitted to the same enforcement authority and remains valid, applicants may rely on a copy of that earlier submission by identifying the previous case file. This eliminates unnecessary duplication for rights holders pursuing multiple enforcement actions before the same
July 9, 2026
Recycling, upcycling, and refill-packaging models are now widely promoted as ways to reduce waste, lower carbon emissions, and respond to consumer demand for sustainable products. However, complications arise when these environmentally driven trends intersect with intellectual property law—particularly where reused or altered packaging continues to display third parties’ registered trademarks. Adding to this complexity, Thailand’s draft Sustainable Packaging Management Act aims to introduce new environmental compliance obligations that businesses must navigate alongside existing trademark concerns. Recycling and upcycling packaging may infringe trademark rights, especially in cases not protected by the first-sale doctrine—the principle that a trademark owner’s rights over a particular mark-bearing product end once the owner first sells it. Furthermore, even refill packaging carries legal risk due to specific statutory prohibitions under Thai law. Compounding these challenges, the draft Sustainable Packaging Management Act will impose extended producer responsibility (EPR) obligations on manufacturers and brand owners, requiring them to manage packaging throughout its lifecycle. These overlapping legal frameworks could deter manufacturers from pursuing ESG-aligned business models unless businesses understand how to navigate both trademark and environmental requirements. Under Thai law, this issue remains uncertain because the Trademark Act does not expressly codify the first sale doctrine, also known as the exhaustion of trademark rights. Generally, this doctrine provides that once a trademark owner has lawfully sold goods bearing its trademark, the owner’s right to control further resale of those particular goods is exhausted. The rationale is that the owner has already received commercial benefit from the first authorized sale; therefore, the purchaser should be free to resell or otherwise dispose of the goods. Although the doctrine is not expressly codified in the Trademark Act, Thai courts have recognized it in relation to genuine goods and parallel imports, as seen in a Supreme Court Judgment No. 2817/2543 in which the
July 6, 2026
Indonesia’s regulation on reporting online intellectual property (IP) infringement provides comprehensive procedural guidance for IP rights holders and their licensees in reporting online infringement complaints. Issued in December 2025 by the Ministry of Law as Regulation No. 47 of 2025 regarding Handling of Intellectual Property Infringement Reports in Electronic Systems, this regulation covers all types of IP rights. It also specifies documentation when reporting infringement, and lays out the procedures for examination, verification, and enforcement actions. Submission of Complaints Complainants may submit reports through the online system of the Directorate General of Intellectual Property (DGIP) or in person at the DGIP office. Complaints may also be filed through an authorized proxy. Under the regulation, complainants are required to provide the following information and documents: Personal details of the complainant; Brief description of the protected work or subject matter (i.e., type of IP and name or address of the infringing website, portal, account, or application, or a link to the location of the infringing content); Complete description of the alleged infringement; Certificate of registration or recordal of the relevant IP; Recordal of IP license agreement, if any; and Other supporting evidence. Verification and Examination Process Upon receiving a complaint, the responsible formality officer may request clarification or additional supporting documents. In the latter case, the complainant must then submit the necessary administrative documents within 14 days of the notification date. Once the documentation is deemed complete and sufficient, the case will be formally registered. Subsequently, the DGIP will establish a verification team to handle online IP violations, which will include the Civil Servant Investigator (PPNS), the Ministry of Communication and Digital Affairs, experts with relevant expertise in IP, and representatives from related associations such as AVISI (Indonesian Video Streaming Association). After examining the report, the team will prepare the Minutes
June 30, 2026
Customs recordation is an enforcement mechanism in Myanmar that enables intellectual property (IP) rights holders to seek prevention of the cross-border movement of infringing goods. The enactment of Myanmar’s IP laws in 2019 has enabled customs recordation for registered marks and copyrights under the Trademark Law 2019 and the Copyright Law 2019. By contrast, the Patent Law 2019 and the Industrial Design Law 2019 do not provide a practical framework for customs recordation, and accordingly such rights are not subject to the customs recordation regime. Under the Trademark Law 2019, rights holders may apply for customs recordation and may also ask the Customs Department to suspend the release of goods suspected of bearing counterfeit marks. Likewise, the Copyright Law 2019 allows for customs intervention in relation to pirated works. These provisions reflect Myanmar’s gradual alignment with international standards on border measures, although the implementation framework remains at a relatively early stage of development. Customs Recordation Pursuant to the Trademark Law 2019 and the Copyright Law 2019, the relevant authorities have issued customs rules concerning the protection of registered marks and copyrights. In practice, the process generally begins with the submission of an application to the Customs Department together with supporting documentation. This typically includes proof of registration in Myanmar; details of the rights holder, applicant, and any authorized representative; and a comprehensive description of the genuine goods. Product identification materials—such as photographs, packaging samples, and distinguishing features—are particularly important in helping customs officers identify suspected infringing goods. A recordation remains valid for two years from the date of approval. It may be renewed for additional two-year terms, provided that the renewal application is filed within the thirty days prior to expiry for marks and up to thirty days in advance of the expiry date for copyrights, in accordance with