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

December 18, 2024

The EU-Thailand Free Trade Agreement

Subscribe to Updates

The EU-Thailand Free Trade Agreement is drawing a lot of interest as the fourth round recently concluded in Bangkok. Despite negotiations starting in 2013, there was a ten-year pause before we saw the first round of negotiations end in September 2023. The initial plan was for four rounds of negotiations, with the free trade agreement (FTA) finalized in 2025. However, following the fourth round it is clear that the negotiations are still ongoing. Now, the question is: how much closer are the EU and Thailand to concluding their FTA?

The EU initially submitted 13 chapter proposals for the FTA, followed by a further 12, and these became the springboard for the negotiations. Given the complexity of agreeing on an accord of this size, there will probably be additional proposals submitted in 2025. These chapters have seen sector-specific negotiation groups formed, and although it has been difficult to truly gauge the status, steady progress has been made in each.

Arguably one of the biggest points of discussion pertains to the customs process for imports and exports. Both sides aim to align their practices in relation to rules of origin and custom rates, with preferential tariff treatments offered to goods originating from Thailand and the EU, as well as talks of eliminating or reducing relevant taxes. The desire for a faster customs clearance can be seen in EU proposals for clearance of goods on arrival. Although there has been progress in agreeing to a more simplified customs process, more work needs to be done before we hear news of the agreed-upon fees and charges, or confirmation of what goods would be allowed temporary admission.

When we consider customs clearance, it is important to also examine what this FTA could mean for rightsholders. One piece of good news is that it appears all three rounds of negotiations surrounding the intellectual property (IP) chapter have been based on the proposal submitted by the EU. While there are no guarantees that the chapter will be identical to the proposal that was submitted, it is likely that the final chapter will at least be formed from the bones of the proposal. For example, this is good news for businesses that have geographical indications on their products, as these (assuming the proposal is accepted) would be protected as long as the protections and marks remain alive in the home jurisdiction.

IP rights aren’t the only thing potentially subject to favorable treatment under the FTA. The same extends to the services and investment chapter. The proposal put forward by the EU is for national treatment for services and service suppliers—something that would be highly welcomed by those in the relevant industry, although not by those offering services such as audiovisual assistance, as that will probably fall outside the scope of the chapter.

With many in-depth discussions completed and many more to go, we are left to wonder when the final agreement will be settled. However, we know that such a large FTA can’t be finalized overnight. As such, we eagerly await the summary of the round-four negotiations and look ahead to what we can expect following round five. Based on what we have already seen, we hope to hear the good news that chapters on IP, transparency and good regulatory practices, and final provisions and exceptions have been agreed upon, as these appear to be the closest to settlement. However, we will wait until the EU publishes their latest summary report before making any promises.

Related Professionals

Practices

Customs and International Trade

Intellectual Property

Location

RELATED INSIGHTS​ 

January 24, 2024
Mickey Mouse (or, rather, a specific early version of the iconic Disney character) famously entered the public domain in the United States on January 1, 2024, almost 100 years after his 1928 debut in the short film Steamboat Willie. Mickey’s arrival highlighted the increasingly wide annual observance of “Public Domain Day”—the day when creative works enter the public domain for the first time, after the expiration of their copyright terms. This date, however, is not international, and depends on the copyright laws of each country. In Vietnam, Mickey Mouse had been in the public domain for years. Vietnam’s public domain regime Under Vietnam’s IP Law, the duration of copyright protection for moral rights is indefinite, except for rights to publish the works, which, together with economic rights, have a protection term of 75 years from first publication for cinematographic works, photography, applied art, and anonymous works. When these works are not published within 25 years from the date of their creation, the protection term is 100 years from the date of creation. For anonymous works, the protection term is determined when information about the author becomes available. For other types of copyrighted works (such as literary and musical works), following the Berne Convention, the protection term is for the life of the author and 50 years after the author’s death. Works for which the terms of protection have expired belong to the public. Everyone is entitled to use such works but must respect the moral rights of the authors. According to these regulations, Steamboat Willie and two other 1928 Mickey Mouse shorts, which are regarded as cinematographic works, have been in the public domain in Vietnam since 2003. This means that, for the past 21 years, anyone could legally copy, publish or distribute those shorts in Vietnam, and could
Read More
December 21, 2023
Can rights holders record trademark and brand-related IP information with customs and, if so, how? Rights holders can record their registered marks with the Myanmar Customs Department to protect their intellectual property rights from cross-border trade in counterfeit goods bearing their registered marks under the Trademark Law, which came into force on April 1, 2023. Furthermore, regardless of whether they have filed a customs recordation, registered mark owners can request a suspension order to prevent the release of goods into free circulation if they have evidence giving reason to suspect that counterfeit goods are being—or will be—imported into the country, in accordance with Section 68 of the Trademark Law’s. According to Ministry of Planning and Finance (MOPF) Notification No. 50/2023, once a trademark is registered under the Trademark Law in Myanmar, the registered mark owner is entitled to apply for a customs recordation with the Customs Department directly or via a legal representative at no cost. Unless the mark is registered with the Intellectual Property Department (IPD) under the Trademark Law, a customs recordation or suspension order cannot be applied. A customs recordation is valid for two years from the date of the application’s acceptance. The recordation can be renewed every two years, 30 days before the expiration date. After the customs recordation is made, any information amended or withdrawn for the registered mark at the IPD must also be provided to the Customs Department within three working days, together with any necessary documentation reflecting the amendments or withdrawal. Customs recordation is not available for industrial designs. The Industrial Design Law and Industrial Design Rules do not provide the requirements and process for a customs recordation or suspension order in relation to industrial designs. Section 68 of the Industrial Design Law indicates that, upon a rights holder’s request, the
Read More
December 15, 2023
As part of its membership in Lex Mundi, Tilleke & Gibbins has published an updated edition of its Guide to Doing Business in Thailand for 2023. This guide outlines the key factors for starting and operating a business in the Thai market. Issues covered include: Investment incentives Financial facilities Exchange controls Import and export regulations Structures for doing business Requirements for the Establishment of a Business Operation of the Business Cessation or Termination of the Business Labor legislation, relations, and supply Tax Immigration requirements This publication is part of Lex Mundi’s Country Guides series prepared by member firms in more than 100 jurisdictions worldwide. The guides serve as a useful resource for planning international business strategy and researching new markets. The full Guide to Doing Business in Thailand is available through the button below.
Read More
December 11, 2023
On November 30, 2023, Vietnam’s Ministry of Science and Technology issued Circular No. 23/2023/TT-BKHCN detailing the implementation of some articles of the 2022 Intellectual Property Law (“IP Law”) and Decree No. 65/2023/ND-CP with respect to the establishment and protection of industrial property rights (“Circular 23”). Circular 23 took immediate effect upon issuance and provides further guidance and necessary clarifications for the implementation of the IP Law, which took effect on January 1, 2023. Some of the most critical provisions of Circular 23 related to the establishment of IP rights are discussed below. Common Procedures Circular 23 enumerates and details the cases where an application will be re-examined, as stipulated in various articles of the IP Law. The circular also adds the procedure in which a protection title can be partially granted, as newly stipulated in Article 118 of the IP Law. The procedure applies to patent, industrial design, and trademark applications. Grounds for IP rights invalidation are further detailed in the new circular. On the patent side, it provides a list of situations where claims are deemed to go beyond the scope of the specification. For trademark registrations, it specifically defines two conditions in which “bad faith” grounds can be used to cancel a registration. The circular sets out the procedure for opposing an application, as stipulated in the new Article 112a of the IP Law. Unlike previous regulations, Circular 23 sets out that the IP Office will inform the applicant of all oppositions (whether or not the opposition is grounded), except for obvious cases where the IP Office will consider the registrability of an opposed mark without informing the applicant. To facilitate applicants and related parties, some timeframes have been extended from one to two months. This includes, for example, the time limit for the applicant and the
Read More