Thailand has expanded the mandatory use of the Electronic Government Procurement (e-GP) system to cover submissions of procurement appeals to all government agencies subject to the Public Procurement and Supplies Administrative Act B.E. 2560 (2017) (Government Procurement Act). The expansion, which was set out in an official circular dated September 16, 2026, from the Public Procurement and Supplies Administrative Ruling Committee, takes effect on October 1, 2026. Notable Changes Under the expanded framework, bidders challenging an e-bidding or selective-method procurement result must file their appeal exclusively through e-GP within seven working days of the result being announced by the Comptroller General’s Department. While the system accepts filings around the clock during that window, submissions on the final day must be fully completed by 16:30 according to the e-GP system clock—merely starting a draft or uploading materials before the cutoff does not count as a confirmed submission. Government agencies that disagree with an appeal, in whole or in part, will also report their findings and supporting documents to the Appeals Committee through e-GP using the prescribed Appeal Opinion Report, also within seven working days of receipt. Withdrawals of appeals must likewise follow prescribed e-GP steps that vary depending on whether the matter is still under agency review, has been forwarded to the Appeals Committee, or has already been resolved. Excluded Categories Certain categories of procurement are not subject to the new guidelines on filing appeals electronically. These include: Procurement of supplies for confidential government use. Procurement conducted by government agencies operating overseas where the bidder is a foreign legal entity with no legal representative in Thailand, or where the bidder is a non-Thai national. Consulting service procurement under chapter 7 of the Government Procurement Act Design or construction supervision procurement under chapter 8 of the Government Procurement These exclusions apply

Vietnam is implementing and developing a broad package of regulatory reforms that could reshape how IP, data, digital platforms, and product authenticity are regulated and enforced. Several of the key measures have been led by the Ministry of Public Security in its legislative and administrative capacity, as part of a broader government effort. The core reform package consists of four key legal instruments: proposed amendments to the Criminal Code, a proposed new Data Security Law, a draft Decree on Product Identification, Authentication and Traceability, and the newly enacted Decree No. 330/2026/ND-CP. These instruments include rules on criminal enforcement, data security, electronic identification, product identification and traceability, administrative violations, and cybersecurity sanctions. Combined, these measures will affect copyright enforcement, industrial property rights, trade secrets, AI training data, product provenance, online takedowns, valuation of counterfeit goods and electronic evidence. It is worth noting that, in addition to strengthening criminal penalties for IP crimes, Vietnam’s emerging regulatory framework increasingly treats infringement, data misuse, product authentication, and platform-enabled violations as interconnected regulatory and enforcement challenges. For rights holders and foreign investors, this could mean stronger tools against counterfeiting and online infringement, but also more compliance obligations around data, traceability, AI, platform controls and government-facing reporting. Expansion of Criminal IP Enforcement Proposed amendments to Article 225 of the Criminal Code would expand criminal copyright exposure beyond reproduction and distribution to cover large-scale commercial public performance and online communication of works, phonograms and video recordings. This is important because piracy is increasingly about streaming, unauthorized communication, and platform access models rather than physical copying. Aggravated copyright infringement could be subject to up to 10 years in prison for individuals and fines of up to VND 6 billion (about USD 228,300) for commercial legal entities. The amended Article 226 would expand criminal industrial property liability beyond

Arbitration under Thai law rests on consent. Section 11 of the Arbitration Act B.E. 2545 (2002) requires an arbitration agreement to be in writing and signed by the parties. This may also be satisfied by communications, an unchallenged allegation in pleadings, or incorporation by reference to a document containing an arbitration clause. A non-signatory cannot, as a general rule, be compelled to arbitrate merely because it participated in the transaction, received a benefit, or belongs to the corporate group of a signatory. Thai law nevertheless permits arbitration agreements and awards to affect third parties indirectly in limited circumstances. Under section 24, an arbitration clause is separable from the main contract; the invalidity of the contract does not invalidate the clause. In Supreme Court Judgment No. 3918/2563, an apparent sales contract concealed a construction contract and was void under the Civil and Commercial Code. However, the concealed construction contract and written arbitration clause remained effective. The tribunal had jurisdiction, and its award was enforceable under the Arbitration Act. Under the Arbitration Act, when a claim or liability is validly transferred, the transferee is bound by the related arbitration agreement. This includes assignment, transfer of obligations, legal succession, and subrogation. Depending on the facts and contract and agency law, consent may arise through execution by an authorized agent, ratification, assumption of obligations, or conduct accepting the contract and its arbitration clause. Thai law respects separate corporate personality. The group-of-companies doctrine has no statutory basis under the Arbitration Act, while alter egos or sham allegations require compelling evidence and an identifiable legal basis. Supreme Court Judgment No. 9161/2568 illustrates the procedural treatment of non-signatories. A consultancy contract required LCIA arbitration seated in Dubai. When the employer sued a consultant and his spouse in Thailand concerning a housing loan, the court disposed of

Thailand’s first-to-file trademark system has a serious vulnerability: it lacks both an explicit mechanism for refusing bad-faith registrations and any means of invalidating them in court after the five-year limitation period has expired. While brand owners worldwide confront trademark squatting, Thailand’s statutory silence stands out, particularly in light of AIPPI’s 2017 Resolution Q249, which recommended that every jurisdiction provide clear tools to address bad faith at all stages of the trademark lifecycle. Nearly a decade later, Thailand has yet to act. This article proposes a concrete reform blueprint, drawing on the legislative models of China, the United Kingdom, and the European Union. The Statutory Gap Under the Thai Trademark Act B.E. 2534, no provision expressly authorizes examiners to reject an application on grounds of bad faith. Section 8(10) addresses well-known marks but offers no relief where the targeted mark lacks well-known status. Practitioners have resorted to Section 8(9)—which bars marks “contrary to public order, morality, or public policy”—as a workaround. However, this provision was designed to address the characteristics of the mark itself, not the applicant’s intent. Thai Supreme Court decisions have split on whether it can reach bad-faith conduct, creating persistent legal uncertainty. The gap extends beyond examination. Civil actions to cancel a bad-faith registration must be brought within five years—a deadline that frequently expires before foreign brand owners discover the squatted mark. Cancellation through the Board of Trademarks remains available but is slow, costly, and subject to court appeal, leaving bad-faith registrations in force during protracted proceedings. The system effectively rewards squatters and penalizes legitimate owners. Lessons from International Best Practices Several major jurisdictions have already closed this gap. China’s 2019 amendment to Article 4 of the Trademark Law introduced an absolute ground for refusal: “bad faith trademark applications without intent to use shall be rejected.” Bad