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 14, 2012

Towards Greater Harmonisation – The View from Southeast Asia

World Intellectual Property Review

The 10 nation members of the Association of Southeast Asian Nations (ASEAN) have committed to implement an ASEAN Economic Community (AEC) by 2015. As of January 1, 2010, with the full implementation of the ASEAN Free Trade Agreement (now called the ASEAN Trade in Goods Agreement), the trading bloc has created a single market of more than 600 million people, making it the world’s ninth largest economy, with a GDP growth of 7.5 percent.

Foreign direct investment into ASEAN rose to $76 billion in 2010, doubling the 2009 level. Comparisons to EU economic integration are frequent, but unlike that merged economy, ASEAN lacks singular regulation and harmonised rules and regulations. Among the key challenges posed by integration, ASEAN members will need to implement an effective system for the registration, enforcement and commercialisation of intellectual property (IP) within the AEC.

Current plan

Although the development of IP laws and enforcement mechanisms differ from one member state to another, ASEAN recognises the importance of effective IP policy, which must be consistently implemented in all member states. In 1995, ASEAN adopted the IP Rights Action Plan, which provides a framework for establishing effective IP policy in the region. The ASEAN Working Group on IP Cooperation (AWGIPC) was commissioned to oversee development of the action plan. The first phase of implementation ran from 2004 to 2010, and was aimed at IP creation efforts, public recognition and awareness of IP concepts and setting up regional enforcement frameworks.

The second phase of the action plan (from 2011 to 2015) is aimed at transforming ASEAN into an innovative and competitive region through the use of IP. In addition to carrying on from the three goals of the first phase, the second phase has addressed additional issues of IP harmonisation at the IP office level and the preparation for member states’ participation in global IP systems.

In light of this, significant improvements can be expected in the IP field within the next few years. For each type of IP, the AEC harmonisation may have several implications for protection, use and enforcement of an IP asset. In particular, the implications for trademarks, patents, and copyright are likely to have the largest impact on businesses in the region.

Trademarks

The AEC harmonisation plan for trademarks will be based primarily on the Madrid Protocol. Unlike the EU model, ASEAN’s integration plan for trademarks does not currently include a Community Trademark (CTM) scheme. According to the action plan, ASEAN members are required to accede to the Madrid Protocol by 2015. At present, only Singapore and Vietnam are members of the Madrid Protocol. Thailand has been working toward accession for several years, and is expected to join by 2015.

Patents

Importantly, the AEC envisions that all countries will become members of the Patent Cooperation Treaty (PCT) by 2015. Currently, four ASEAN member states have not joined (Brunei Darussalam, Cambodia, Laos, and Myanmar). Member states are charged with the responsibility to issue appropriate guidelines for PCT implementation in their country, and to amend any relevant legislation. AEC IP harmonisation strongly advocates implementation of the ASEAN Patent Examination Cooperation (ASPEC) system. It is hoped that the system will be fully operational by 2012, and will be used for 5 percent of all patent applications at this time. Other plans include the establishment of a regional network of at least 20 regional patent libraries to increase access to global scientific information.

Patent office capacity building is a specific AEC IP harmonisation goal, with training programmes for patent examiners to feature heavily in coming years. Various international patent offices have committed to providing training and best practice recommendations, with ASEAN patent examiners receiving training in neighbouring patent offices. Of note is plant variety protection, with Singapore and Vietnam, which have joined the International Union for the Protection of New Varieties of Plants (UPOV), expected to share their experience to help other member states bring their plant variety protection regimes up to international standards.

Copyright

Copyright harmonisation has received less emphasis than has been given to trademarks or patents, but it does feature in the action plan, with member states encouraged to undertake studies on the contributions of copyright industries to their economies and then share those conclusions with other members, including uniform recordal procedures. Thailand is taking the lead under the AEC in sharing information on how to build and operate collecting societies for effective use of copyright.

Conclusion

ASEAN IP offices have for years faced difficulties such as outdated office infrastructures, insufficiently trained examiners, tremendous backlogs of patent and trademark applications and, of course, rampant IP infringement. The AEC is striving to develop the necessary framework for regional cooperation in many areas of IP. The framework goals, if met, will not only improve regional cooperation, but will achieve harmonisation on some legal facets of IP and will help to bring many IP regimes up to best practice international standards. This will allow stakeholders in the member states to capitalise better on their untapped IP assets and, we hope, serve as a catalyst to improve innovation and encourage technological solutions to what are certain to be daunting, yet exciting, challenges to a rising integrated economy.


ASEAN FDAs – A harmonisation model for IP?

While harmonisation of IP registration systems within the 10 nations of ASEAN may be a few years in the making, regional Food & Drug Administrations (FDAs) and Departments of Agriculture have already begun to streamline and harmonise registration procedures.

Cosmetics. On January 1, 2008, ASEAN member states implemented the ASEAN Harmonization Cosmetics Regulation Scheme. As a result, a streamlined system and an efficient registration process have replaced the previously chaotic system, and there is now just a solitary category for cosmetic products.

Pharmaceuticals. While currently each local FDA has different requirements for registering pharmaceutical products in each ASEAN country, the pharmaceutical industry is leading the way for the implementation of a harmonised regulatory scheme which aims to eliminate technical barriers to trade. The various FDAs have implemented the ASEAN Common Technical Requirements and Dossier (ACTR/ACTD) on Quality, Safety and Efficacy, which provides guidelines on analytical and process validation, stability studies, and bioavailability/bioequivalence.

Medical devices. Each member state has until 2014 to implement the new requirements established by the Medical Device Working Group, to finalise the harmonisation process for all medical devices.

Food. In 2009, the AEC adopted the ASEAN Integrated Food Security Framework and Strategy Plan of Action for ASEAN Food Security and is currently considering using the Codex General Standards for Food Additives (GSFA) as the basis for harmonisation.

Agricultural products and livestock. Harmonisation of agricultural products is also well underway, with the 2006 ASEAN Good Agricultural Practices for Fresh Fruit and Vegetables (ASEAN GAP) adopted as a standard for the production, harvesting, and post-harvest handling of fruits and vegetables in the region. Other harmonisation standards include accreditation of livestock establishments and livestock products.

RELATED INSIGHTS​ 

October 15, 2025
The Indonesian Food and Drug Administration (BPOM) has introduced more stringent oversight of health supplements containing probiotics with new guidelines that require clinical trials for certain products and expanded documentation standards. BPOM Regulation No. 17 of 2025 replaces the previous 2021 regulation and establishes a comprehensive framework for evaluating probiotic strains used in health supplements. Assessment Requirements The new regulation expands the scope of assessment to include not only categorization and documentation but also technical procedures, strain classification, and clinical trial requirements. Unlike the previous regulation, which provided general guidance, the updated framework creates a comprehensive system for evaluating both registered probiotic strains and new or combined strains. Manufacturers must now submit supporting documentation covering strain identification and functional characterization, safety, efficacy, and product quality. The previous regulation required documentation only on safety, efficacy, and quality. Clinical Trials One of the most significant changes is the requirement for clinical trials conducted in Indonesia for applications that include benefit claims other than maintaining digestive health, or where there are modifications to benefit claims. The regulation specifies that phase 1 trials must demonstrate safety, while phase 2 trials must validate efficacy using statistically valid methods such as double-blind, randomized, placebo-controlled studies). In addition, phase 3 and phase 4 trials may be required, and postmarket surveillance data must be submitted. Technical Assessment Framework Annex 4, a newly introduced section, establishes technical procedures for assessing health supplements containing probiotics in Indonesia. This comprehensive framework outlines criteria for evaluating new probiotic strains, including strain identification, functional characterization, safety, efficacy, and product quality. The annex introduces a clear classification of claims for health supplement products containing probiotics: General claims(e.g., maintaining digestive health). Functional claims(e.g., normal biological function or activity in the body). Risk reduction claims(e.g., lowering disease risk). The regulation restricts use of the term
October 3, 2025
On September 26, 2025, the Contract Committee under Thailand’s Consumer Protection Board issued a regulation that aims to standardize contracts and enhance consumer protection within the beauty and wellness industry. The Notification on Prescribing the Beauty Service Business as a Contract-Controlled Business B.E. 2568 (2025), which takes effect on January 24, 2026, requires business operators to use a prescribed standard contract in Thai and adhere to strict mandatory provisions and prohibitions. These regulations apply to operators across all in-person and online service channels, including via digital platforms. “Beauty services business” is defined as the provision of services under an agreement allowing consumers to receive a series of treatments, either over a set number of sessions or within a set period. This includes massage, spa, other methods for cleanliness, beauty, or care of facial or body skin, and weight control and body shaping—including services offered electronically. The law excludes surgery, liposuction, and medical treatments performed by licensed practitioners. The notification establishes the following key requirements: Mandatory contract and formatting. All contracts with consumers must use the standard contract form, in Thai, with clear, readable text (minimum font size of 2 millimeters, no more than 11 characters per inch), and include all essential terms from the annexed form. Contract execution. Contracts must be made in duplicate, with one copy given to the consumer at signing. For agreements concluded through electronic channels, the process must comply with the Electronic Transactions Act and use the same required terms. Digital platforms. Business operators who provide services facilitated through a digital platform as an intermediary are ultimately responsible for ensuring the consumer receives a compliant contract. Prohibited clauses. The law prohibits clauses that limit or exclude liability for damages to life, body, health, mind, or property resulting from breach of contract or a wrongful act;
September 16, 2025
Since Thailand formally removed Mitragyna speciosa (kratom) from the list of narcotic drugs, the country has progressed from outright prohibition to a structured, license-based regime. While the Ministry of Public Health oversees cannabis plant regulation, the Ministry of Justice (MOJ) is the regulatory authority overseeing kratom plants. For the avoidance of doubt, separate Ministry of Public Health notifications prohibit the use of kratom as a food ingredient unless a food safety evaluation has been conducted; however, this restriction does not affect trade in unprocessed leaves per se. For businesses in Thailand dealing exclusively in kratom leaves, the most consequential development is the Ministerial Regulation on the Application for Permits and Notifications for the Importation and Exportation of Kratom Leaves B.E. 2568 (2025), a bylaw of the Kratom Plant Act 2022. The ministerial regulation establishes the following notable definitions: “Kratom leaves”: Fresh or dried leaves in their natural, unprocessed state (no extracts, concentrates, or infused products). “Import/Export”: Any act of bringing kratom leaves into or out of Thailand, whether for commercial sale, industrial processing abroad, or research. Import/Export Licensing Under the Kratom Plant Act, a license is mandatory for importing or exporting kratom leaves. Individuals, juristic persons, community enterprises, and state agencies in Thailand are eligible to obtain a license to import (or a license to export) kratom leaves. Licenses are available to qualified individuals and juristic persons. Individuals must satisfy the following qualifications to be eligible for a license: Thai nationality, ≥ 20 years old, resident in Thailand. Not incompetent, quasi-incompetent, or under legal guardianship. No license suspension currently in force under the Kratom Act or Narcotics Code. No license revocation in the previous two years. No conviction under the Kratom Act or Narcotics Code within the previous two years (unless fully released from punishment). Juristic persons must satisfy
September 4, 2025
With advancements in health technology, telemedicine has taken on a wider online presence in Thailand. Under the Medical Facility Act, licensed clinics and hospitals may now diagnose, prescribe, and issue electronic prescriptions during a video call, provided they maintain patient confidentiality and proper recordkeeping. As a complementary concept, a telepharmacy allows a pharmacist to verify prescriptions, counsel patients, and dispense medication from a remote site. Hospitals, clinic chains, and some retail pharmacy groups have adopted “drive-thru” or “locker” pick-up points where drugs are bagged only after a real-time video consultation with a registered pharmacist. The clear benefits of telehealth include shorter waiting times and broader access to specialists, which is in the public interest. Drug Distribution and Advertising in Thailand The online pharmacy ecosystem creates a legal bridge in that once a teleconsulting doctor issues an e-prescription, a licensed pharmacy can lawfully dispense and deliver the medicine prescribed to the patient’s door. Nonetheless, the critical compliance component remains the advertising of medicinal drugs. It is still not allowed to advertise prescription/pharmacy-dispensed drugs to the public in Thailand. Although Thailand’s Drug Act of 1967 was written more than half a century ago, it still governs the trading of every medicinal drug that makes its way to consumers in Thailand—whether bought at a pharmacy or delivered with a few taps on a smartphone. First and foremost, the pharmacy must hold a license to sell medicinal drugs as a retailer. It is also mandatory that arrangements be made for a pharmacist to be on duty during opening hours. Drugs are classified into three main categories: prescription drugs, pharmacy-dispensed drugs, and over-the-counter (OTC) drugs. The listing of OTC drugs with their prices via an online platform is allowed, as only OTC drugs may be advertised directly to the public. However, naming or showing