The director-general of Myanmar’s Intellectual Property Department (IPD) has written a newspaper article stating that the country’s trademark registration will come into full effect with the “grand opening” of the IPD on April 26, 2023. This announcement comes days after the IPD issued the Trademark Rules and other related notifications in conjunction with the Trademark Law coming into force. While an official notification confirming the date is still pending, the anticipated grand opening means that as of April 26, marks filed during the IPD’s current “soft opening” period—and for which all fees have been fully paid—will be officially accorded the first filing date, which is the date of the IPD’s grand opening. Accordingly, mark owners who submitted marks during the soft opening period need to pay the official filing fees before April 26 in order to secure the earliest possible filing date (i.e., April 26) under the Trademark Law’s new first-to-file system. Mark owners also need to submit a notarized Appointment of Representative (TM-2) form to the IPD to enable their trademark representative in Myanmar to carry out this step. Moreover, the trademark system coming into full effect with the IPD’s grand opening will enable mark owners to file registration applications for new marks—which has not been permitted during the soft opening. To expedite this process, these mark owners should now start preparing all necessary documents for filing their new trademark applications. For assistance ensuring that your existing mark secures the earliest possible filing date, or for assistance in processing new trademark applications, please contact Tilleke & Gibbins at [email protected].

As Myanmar’s long-awaited Trademark Law came into force on April 1, 2023, the government issued several pieces of implementing legislation, including the Trademark Rules. Together, this legislation gives shape to Myanmar’s new trademark system and paves the way for the eventual “grand opening” under the Trademark Law. The first piece of legislation, Notification 17/2023 of the Ministry of Commerce (MOC), set out the Trademark Rules. The rules contain detailed provisions on the registration and examination of marks, opposition to registration, priority claims, and criteria for well-known marks. The rules allow for substantive examination of trademark registration applications to begin. The second piece of legislation (MOC Notification 1/2023) established the Intellectual Property Agency (IP Agency). Made up of senior government figures, IP experts, and representatives of civil society, the IP Agency is responsible for implementing trademark policy and hearing administrative appeals against decisions by the trademark registrar. The IP Agency’s first notification set the official fees for requests and applications to the Intellectual Property Department (IPD), including a fee of MMK 150,000 (approx. USD 72) per class for filing a trademark application. Finally, the IPD issued two procedural announcements. Announcement No. 1/2023 confirmed that the second phase of the “soft opening” will commence on April 3, 2023. As explained in our previous update, during the second phase of the soft opening, mark owners who have already filed trademark applications with the IPD must pay the official filing fees. Announcement No. 2/2023 specified the ways in which these fees can be paid. Now that the Trademark Law has come into force and implementing legislation has been issued, mark owners should prepare to pay the necessary filing fees and submit their notarized Appointment of Representative (TM-2) forms to the IPD. We will continue to monitor developments related to the new trademark system. For more information on protecting intellectual property in

Most employers know that terminating employees for poor job performance is not easy. But it is actually legally possible—if employers have the right approach and take specific precautionary measures. However, failing to take these precautions can mean that an employer is either stuck with an incompetent employee or on the losing end of a lawsuit for unfair termination. This article will lay out some essential considerations for employers in Thailand regarding termination of employment for poor performance. First, understand that “poor work performance” is a lack of performance or ability, or an inability to work with other employees. It does not constitute a violation of work rules or regulations. In some cases, however, an employee’s failure to act in accordance with lawful instructions or commands of the employer, resulting in poor work performance, could also be considered a violation of work rules or regulations. This may be the case if the work rules or regulations clearly state that an employee must strictly comply with the employer’s instructions or commands. Second, an employer can, in fact, terminate an employee due to poor work performance. For example, this may be possible in the following scenarios: Records show that an employee’s work performance has fallen below the employer’s required standards, and the employee has not tried to improve his or her work performance for three consecutive years. In addition, it does not appear that the employer was biased when giving ratings or scores for the employee’s work performance. The job description of the employee includes coordination with employees in other departments, but the employee has not been able to do so. Therefore, the employee was reassigned to a new job function, but the employee still did not improve. This suggests that the employee has a lack of interpersonal skills and is not be able to work well

With Myanmar’s new Trademark Law set to come into force on April 1, enabling legislation has now been issued to grant certain courts jurisdiction to hear claims under the law. This provides trademark owners with an avenue to file claims under the Trademark Law for the first time, and is a very positive indication that no further delays to implementation are likely. The Trademark Law grants the Supreme Court of Myanmar the power to establish an Intellectual Property Rights Court. The Supreme Court can also assign new jurisdiction to existing courts pending the establishment of the Intellectual Property Rights Court. The enabling legislation, which takes the form of five notifications issued by the Supreme Court, accordingly confers jurisdiction on several existing courts. This includes the jurisdiction to hear criminal and civil complaints and appeals against decisions of the trademark authorities. The High Court of Yangon Region and the High Court of the Regions and States are also given appellate jurisdiction to hear appeals against the orders, decisions and judgments of other appointed courts. No further information has been given on whether or when a separate Intellectual Property Rights Court will be established. This development confirms that brand owners—who previously had no recourse to specialized courts in Myanmar regarding the enforcement of their trademark rights—will soon be able to pursue cases. Moreover, the issuance of these notifications gave a strong confirmation that the Trademark Law would indeed take effect on April 1, as planned. As we explained in a previous update, a date for the “grand opening” has yet to be announced, meaning it will still be some time before marks that were refiled during the “soft opening” will be given a filing date and before applications for all other marks can be filed. However, it is expected that the Trademark Rules, which will set

Digital asset litigation is one of the most cutting-edge types of litigation in Thailand. There are factual, technical, regulatory, and legal challenges and hurdles for the parties to the dispute throughout all procedural stages. This is mainly because digital assets are different in nature from more conventional types of assets, as they are digitally created and used on a blockchain network. Legal Status The first issue to be aware of in approaching digital asset litigation is the legal status of digital assets. Under Thai law, there are two key terms concerning digital assets’ legal status: “thing” and “property.” Things are tangible objects, while property provides a much wider range of meaning. Property could be anything—including intangible objects that may be of value and able to be appropriated. It is fairly clear that digital assets are not a “thing” since they are not tangible. However, determining whether digital assets are “property” is even more complicated. Although digital assets are intangible objects, one might argue that, unlike fiat money, they do not have any inherent value but are rather conferred value based on certain people’s perspective. (For example, the Bank of Thailand expressed this opinion of bitcoin in 2014.) Some may even argue that digital assets cannot be possessed and therefore cannot be appropriated. According to these arguments, digital assets should not be regarded as a property either. Legal Grounds Determining whether digital assets are things, property, or something else altogether is crucial to any subsequent litigation. In Thailand, the party initiating the lawsuit (the plaintiff) generally has to state the relevant legal grounds for the complaint—that is, the different relevant legal provisions that the court is to apply to the case. These provisions of Thai laws mostly refer only to “things” or to “property,” not both. This often means that each legal grounds has its

Myanmar’s State Administration Council has specified the enforcement date of the country’s 2019 Trademark Law as April 1, 2023—confirming a recent announcement from Myanmar’s Intellectual Property Department (IPD) to certified trademark representatives in the country. The official public announcement came in Notification No. 82/2023, which was dated March 10, 2023, and published in the government-owned daily newspaper the following day. The planned next step is the promulgation of the Trademark Rules to establish substantive procedures on trademark-related matters for trademark applications under the new system. The rules, which are necessary to establish procedures for collecting official fees, are expected to be issued in March 2023. Once the Trademark Rules are established and the Trademark Law comes into force, the second phase of the IPD’s “soft opening” period will commence—expected to occur on April 3, 2023, if there are no further changes. In this second phase, mark owners can pay the official fees for trademark applications filed within the first phase of the soft opening. According to IPD officials, marks recorded under Myanmar’s old system or used in the country can still be filed together with payment during the soft opening’s second phase, either in person by the mark owner or through a certified representative via the online system. Even if such a previously recorded mark is registered after April 1, 2023, the application during the second phase can still reserve the earliest possible filing date under the new first-to-file system. This second phase will continue until the “grand opening” of the IPD commences, unless officials make further announcements to the contrary. IPD officials have confirmed that the earliest possible filing date of the new system will be the date of the IPD’s grand opening. In light of the ongoing and planned developments, the grand opening is expected to occur within 2023. Considerations This news

Vietnam’s Law on Intellectual Property was comprehensively amended in 2022 (“2022 IP Law”), and the amended law came into effect (with the exception of a few provisions) on 1 January 2023. Along with amendments of substantive matters, the revised version also touches upon the requirements for providing IP representation (agent) services, at both the organizational and individual level. Requirements for Organizations Article 154 of the previous IP Law provided the following conditions for organizations to act as IP representation service organizations: The organization is a lawfully established and operating law-practicing enterprise, cooperative or organization, or a scientific and technological service organization, except for foreign law-practicing organizations operating in Vietnam. The organization has the function of providing IP representation services stated in its business registration certificate or operation registration certificate. The head(s) of the organization or a person(s) authorized by the head(s) of the organization has a certificate for practicing IP representation services. While the first requirement remains unchanged, the 2022 IP Law has removed the second requirement, and revised the third requirement to be more relaxed. Specifically, the amended provision only requires that there must be at least one individual holding a certificate for practicing IP representation services in each IP representation service organization. (Regarding the second requirement, while it is no longer stated in the IP Law, this does not mean that any organization can practice IP representation services, because this is a conditional business line and only organizations who meet the conditions for providing such services, provided in other legislation, can do business in this field.) Requirements for Individuals At the individual level, the law both tightens and loosens the requirements. Under the former law, to be granted a certificate for practicing IP representation services, the individual must: Be a Vietnamese citizen with full capacity for civil acts; Reside permanently in Vietnam; Have a university degree; Have either directly

Vietnam’s amended Law on Intellectual Property of 2022 (“Amended IP Law”) took effect on January 1, 2023, with the exception of a few provisions. However, subordinate legal documents (bylaws) providing necessary details and guidance on the new law still have not been issued, leaving some aspects of the law’s implementation in a state of limbo. This has caused a particular challenge for applications for establishing industrial property rights that were filed before January 1, 2023, but remain pending at the Intellectual Property Office of Vietnam (“IP Office”). While waiting for the official bylaws to be promulgated, the IP Office has issued some internal protocols for handling applications in this interim period. Partial Grant of Protection Titles The Amended IP Law mentions, for the first time, the possibility of partial granting of protection titles for industrial property objects. Under the amended Article 118, the IP Office can issue a notice of its intention to grant partial protection to the allowable parts of a patent/design/trademark application. However, as an interim protocol, the intention to partially grant protection has been temporarily put on hold until further guidance is issued. Security Control on Patents For patent applications based on Vietnamese inventions, if there are any corresponding patent applications filed overseas, the IP Office will suspend the examination until the official new bylaws on security control are provided. Applications for Designs which Are Not Visible During Use The IP Office imposes a specific mechanism on design applications filed from August 1, 2020, until January 1, 2023, in which the designs are not visible during the exploitation of the utility of complex products. Accordingly, even if a notice of intention to grant was issued but there was no decision on granting by January 1, 2023, the IP Office will issue a new notice on the intended rejection, indicating that the design will