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

Subscribe to Updates
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.

Download Full Article
Related Professionals

Industries

Life Sciences

Practices

Intellectual Property

Regulatory Affairs

Location

RELATED INSIGHTS​ 

August 8, 2025
In response to persistent challenges in food safety management and recent high-profile incidents involving counterfeit supplemented foods, infant formula, and health supplements, the Ministry of Health of Vietnam is initiating comprehensive regulatory reforms. These reforms include proposed amendments to the Law on Food Safety and its implementing Decree No. 15/2018/ND-CP (Decree 15), introducing significant changes to the registration procedures for food products, especially supplemented food products and health supplements. While awaiting public consultation and approval of the amended Law on Food Safety, the Ministry of Health is developing an interim mechanism, which includes a draft decree to replace Decree 15 and a draft resolution to address urgent issues until the amended law becomes effective, expected in July 2026. To align with the new Law on Quality of Products and Goods, the draft resolution stipulates that the declaration and registration of food products will follow the following procedures: Declaration of applied standards for food products, which is currently known as the “self-declaration” procedure, applies to processed packaged foods, food additives, food processing aids, containers or utensils that come into direct contact with food, packaging materials in direct contact with food, and micronutrients. Granting of circulation numbers, which is the current “registration of product declaration” procedure, applies to specific categories of food including health supplements, medical nutrition foods, special dietary foods, nutritional products for children up to 36 months, and, especially, supplemented foods, which are currently subject to self-declaration but will be shifted to this registration procedure. In addition, the following new procedure is introduced in the draft decree: Registration of declaration of conformity, which applies to the same product category as in “declaration of applied standards” above, but is for products that are already subject to technical regulations covering both safety indicators and quality indicators. Changes to the Food Product
Read More
July 23, 2025
On June 26, 2025, the National Assembly of Vietnam adopted Resolution No. 216/2025/QH15 to extend the duration of agricultural land use tax exemption through December 31, 2030. This policy extension reaffirms the government’s ongoing efforts to support the agricultural sector, ensure national food security, and promote rural development. Key Takeaways Tax Exemption Period Extended: The new resolution continues the full exemption from agricultural land use tax as stipulated under Resolution No. 55/2010/QH12, as amended in 2016 and 2020. The tax exemption, which was originally set to expire at the end of 2025, will now remain in effect until December 31, 2030. Scope of Exemption: The exemption applies to all types of land currently eligible under the existing legal framework for agricultural land use tax relief. This typically includes land used by households, cooperatives, and non-commercial organizations for agricultural production, aquaculture, salt-making, and reforestation. Effective Date: Resolution 216 will take effect on January 1, 2026. During the interim period, tax exemption remains valid under existing laws and resolutions until the end of 2025. Implementation Guidance to Follow: The government is tasked with issuing detailed guidance to ensure effective implementation of this extended exemption. Businesses, cooperatives, and individuals engaged in agricultural activities should monitor upcoming regulations and instructions from relevant ministries. Outlook Vietnam’s extension of agricultural land use tax exemption demonstrates a strong policy commitment to rural economic stability and environmental sustainability. For land users, the exemption represents meaningful financial relief that can be reinvested into modernizing farming techniques, improving land efficiency, or transitioning to sustainable practices. While the extension itself is automatic, it is recommended that agricultural land users and stakeholders review their land use documentation and tax profiles to ensure alignment with eligibility requirements. Future implementation regulations may also introduce new compliance obligations that should be tracked closely.
Read More
July 15, 2025
On July 1, 2025, Vietnam’s Ministry of Health issued Circular No. 30/2025/TT-BYT providing updated guidance on the application of drug quality standards, testing of drugs and pharmaceutical ingredients, and procedures for the recall and handling of noncompliant drugs (Circular 30). Circular 30 officially came into effect on the same day and replaces Circular No. 11/2018/TT-BYT and its amendments. Key highlights of Circular 30 are presented below. Drug and Pharmaceutical Ingredient Quality Standards Circular 30 maintains consistency with previous regulations regarding the selection of an applicable quality specification. Pharmaceutical businesses and drug preparation establishments may still choose to apply standards from the Vietnamese Pharmacopoeia, reference pharmacopoeias (including the United States Pharmacopoeia, the European Pharmacopoeia, the British Pharmacopoeia, the Japanese Pharmacopoeia, and the International Pharmacopoeia), or an in-house specification. Priority is given to the Vietnamese Pharmacopoeia and reference pharmacopoeias, encompassing quality indicators, quality levels, and testing methods. If alternative pharmacopoeias or in-house specifications are used, they must meet the requirements outlined in the corresponding monographs of the Vietnamese or reference pharmacopoeias. At the time of registration, the quality standards of drugs and pharmaceutical ingredients must comply with either the current version of the pharmacopoeia or a previous version of the pharmacopoeia that is no more than two years older than the current version. The requirement for updating quality specifications in line with the quality under the corresponding pharmacopoeia also applies to products that have already been granted marketing authorization. Testing Drugs and Pharmaceutical Ingredients in Quality Management Similar to the regulations under the previous circular, if pharmaceutical businesses disagree with the sample testing results, they may, within five working days of receiving the test report, request that the state quality inspection authority designate an alternative testing facility. The testing period for establishments listed as foreign drug manufacturers with quality violations remains
Read More
July 14, 2025
Life sciences specialists from Tilleke & Gibbins have updated the firm’s guide to pharmaceutical data exclusivity regulations and practices in Southeast Asia. This guide contains quick-reference information on the availability of data exclusivity protections and limitations in Cambodia, Indonesia, Laos, Malaysia, Myanmar, Thailand, and Vietnam. Developing and launching a new drug on a commercial scale requires an enormous amount of time and investment in research and development (R&D), including pre-clinical testing and clinical trials. When considering the aggregate amount of drug development costs, it is important to recognize that this includes not only the investment in developing new drugs that get approved by a government food and drug regulator and are successfully brought to market, but also the R&D expenditures on a large number of potential pharmaceutical compounds and products that never actually make it to market. In particular, considerable investment is required in order to conduct and produce clinical trial data—to prove safety, efficacy and effectiveness of a new drug—that would warrant marketing approval by the regulatory authority. Such data is proprietary in nature and highly valuable for a research-based pharmaceutical company that develops an original drug. On the other hand, patent law typically confers generic drug manufacturers with the ability to engage in various preparatory activities with a view to obtaining marketing approval for a generic product before the patent for the original drug expires (commonly known as a “Bolar provision”). Since a generic drug maker may submit an application for marketing approval of a generic product before the relevant patent expires, the extent to which the drug originator’s data submitted to the regulatory authority is protected—or in other words, the extent to which the generic company may rely on the drug originator’s previously filed data, which underpins the safety and efficacy of the drug, to support
Read More