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​ 

June 24, 2026
Patent enablement requirements are provided under Article 102 of Vietnam’s Law on Intellectual Property (IP Law). In particular, a patent specification must “fully and clearly disclose the nature of the invention to such an extent that, based on the specification, a person having ordinary skill in the relevant art can implement the invention.” In pharmaceutical and biotechnology patents, this requirement is more complicated and subject to more rigorous assessment. The Patent Examination Guidelines (Guidelines) of the Intellectual Property Office of Vietnam (IP Office) were amended in March 2026 to introduce Annexes III and IV for the pharmaceutical and biotechnology sectors, in which Annex III provides detailed guidelines on the assessment of specification requirements. These amendments were made under a project for strengthening capacity in industrial property examination between the Japan International Cooperation Agency (JICA) and the IP Office. Annex III provides detailed instructions on how examiners assess enablement in a pharmaceutical or biotechnology application, and offers examples of acceptable and unacceptable descriptions with regard to the enablement aspect. Enablement Requirements in Pharma and Biotech Patents Article 12.7 of Circular 10/2026/TT-BKHCN (Circular 10) adds to the requirements of Article 102 of the IP Law that the description must demonstrate the novelty, inventive step, and industrial applicability of the technical solution. For pharmaceutical composition subject matters, Article 12.9 of Circular 10 sets out that the description must present the results of clinical trials and/or the pharmacological effects of the claimed pharmaceutical composition, and must include at least the following information: Substance/mixture used. Testing method (system) employed. Information on the test results. Correlation between the pharmacological effects obtained from the tests and the application of the pharmaceutical product in the prevention, diagnosis, and treatment of diseases. The Guidelines note that pharmacological study results should be presented in a quantified manner, and pharmacological
June 16, 2026
Since the implementation of the Trademark Law 2019 on April 1, 2023, Myanmar has operated under a modern first-to-file trademark system that brings its registration framework closer to international practice. As the new regime continues to develop in practice, applicants are increasingly required to navigate formal examination requirements, substantive objections, and procedural deadlines with greater precision. This article provides a high-level review of the trademark examination process in Myanmar, focusing on the principal stages from initial review to approval, the types of objections commonly raised by the Intellectual Property Department (IPD), and the key considerations for responding effectively. A clear understanding of these issues is essential for applicants seeking to secure registration efficiently and to mitigate avoidable delays or refusals. Examination Process: Key Stages Trademark applications filed with the IPD undergo two stages of review. Formality Examination The IPD first verifies compliance with procedural requirements, including: Correct Nice Classification Clear mark representation Accurate applicant details Clearly defined goods or services Representative details, if the application is filed by a representative Other formality requirements cover translation and transliteration of any non-English or non-Myanmar elements in the mark, color claim details, applicable disclaimers, and payment of official fees. Deficiencies result in an office action requiring correction within 30 days, which may be extended upon request. Registrability Examination The IPD also assesses registrability. A mark may be refused if it: Lacks distinctiveness Is descriptive or generic Misleads the public or violates public order/morality Contains prohibited state symbols Only compliant applications proceed to publication. Responding to Office Actions Applicants must respond within 30 days of notification from the IPD. Depending on the nature of the objection, strategies may include submitting legal arguments for distinctiveness, providing evidence of acquired distinctiveness, filing appropriate disclaimers, clarifying descriptions such as color claims, or amending the listed goods
June 15, 2026
The surge in AI development has led to a desperate demand for large, high-quality training data. However, real-world data can be expensive to collect, difficult to access, and often subject to strict privacy and regulatory constraints. Synthetic data, which consists of artificially generated records that replicate the statistical properties of real-world data without reproducing specific individuals’ information, provides an appealing solution by generating artificial datasets at scale without relying on identifiable personal information. It combines speed, cost efficiency, and regulatory compliance, making it a sensible alternative for organizations seeking to reduce risks while maintaining data utility. When properly anonymized, synthetic datasets may fall outside the scope of laws such as the EU’s General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR) or Thailand’s Personal Data Protection Act (PDPA), reducing compliance burdens while still supporting high-quality model training. However, relying on synthetic data without rigorous legal due diligence could be a strategic mistake. It replaces one set of known risks (scraping, direct privacy liability) with a new set of complex liabilities. The narrative that synthetic data is a “silver bullet” for privacy and IP compliance is dangerous and could be misleading. While synthetic data addresses data scarcity, it also introduces new legal uncertainties. Legal counsel should anticipate downstream risks arising from compromised data sources. Models trained on unlawfully obtained data may need to be decommissioned, even if their outputs appear lawful. What is synthetic data? Synthetic data refers to artificially generated information created using AI techniques such as deep learning and generative models. Instead of copying real records, it reproduces the statistical patterns and relationships found in the original dataset. Synthetic data generally falls into three categories: Fully synthetic data – Entirely new data points generated from learned patterns. The model studies the structure of the original data and produces records that resemble real-world
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,