The Indonesian government has implemented mandatory halal certification to protect its predominantly Muslim population. To ensure halal standards, the government has issued several key regulations, including Law No. 33 of 2014 concerning Halal Product Assurance, Government Regulation No. 42 of 2024 concerning Implementation of Halal Product Assurance, and specifically for imported products, Decision of the Head of Halal Product Assurance Agency (BPJPH) No. 90 of 2023 concerning Procedures of Implementing Foreign Halal Certificate Registration. Compliance Deadlines The government has established statutory deadlines for products and services to obtain halal certification under Government Regulation No. 39 of 2021 concerning Implementation of Halal Product Assurance. The deadline for imported food, beverages, and slaughtering products and services to comply with halal certification was extended to October 17, 2026 (from October 17, 2024, originally) with the issuance of Government Regulation No. 42 of 2024. Other product categories have varying deadlines: October 17, 2026: Natural drugs, quasi-drugs, health supplements, cosmetics, chemical products, genetically engineered products, clothing and accessories, household supplies, prayer equipment, stationery, and class A medical devices October 17, 2029: Over-the-counter drugs and class B medical devices October 17, 2034: Prescription drugs (excluding psychotropics) and class C medical devices SHLN Registration for Imports To simplify the halal certification process for imported products, BPJPH offers a foreign halal certificate registration (Registrasi Sertifikat Halal Luar Negeri, or SHLN registration) pathway. This allows eligible imported products to obtain halal certification without filing the standard national halal certification procedure. Under the Halal Law, imported products are not required to apply for national halal certification if their halal certificate is issued by a foreign halal institution that has entered into a mutual recognition agreement (MRA) with BPJPH. Currently, 89 foreign halal institutions from countries (including the United States, South Korea, Thailand, and the United Kingdom) have entered into MRAs with BPJPH, with an additional 29 institutions in the

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 a prescription drug or pharmacy-dispensed drug

On June 6, 2025, the Superior People’s Court in Hanoi overturned a non-use cancellation decision by the Intellectual Property Office of Vietnam, a rare and impactful occurrence. In a ruling that may help clarify the enforcement of Vietnam’s IP Law, the court held that valid trademark use can be established through commercial arrangements where the brand owner maintains actual control over the use of the mark, and is not confined to relationships governed by a so-called “formal license agreement. Background: Cross-Border Use, Local Challenge A Singapore company owns a well-known brand of consumer products that has gained recognition across Southeast Asia. In recent years, the brand has been targeted by several unauthorized trademark filings in Vietnam. In one such instance, a local Vietnamese trading company—previously linked to the production and export of counterfeit goods to neighboring countries—filed a non-use cancellation against the Singapore company’s mark and sought to register it under its own name. If the cancellation had been upheld, it would have enabled a complete hijacking of the brand. The IP holder operates in Vietnam through a structured cross-border supply chain. Under an agreement between two related foreign entities, one of which managed regional operations, production orders were placed through a designated Vietnamese company. While the Vietnamese manufacturer was not a party to the agreement, its role in using the mark was recognized and governed by internal and commercial documentation. The Vietnamese manufacturer lawfully obtained the necessary permits, regulatory approvals, and customs clearances for producing the goods in Vietnam. These activities were supported by banking records and internal communications, evidencing active, continuous use of the mark in Vietnam. However, the IP Office concluded that this use did not meet the statutory criteria because the Vietnamese manufacturer did not have a direct license agreement with the brand owner, as outlined in provisions on trademark

Liberal cannabis access in Thailand is officially over. On June 26, 2025, the Ministry of Public Health brought the inflorescence of cannabis back under tight control through its new Notification on Controlled Herbs (Cannabis) 2025 (“Notification 2025”). The message is that cannabis may stay in the marketplace, but only if strictly supervised under a cannabis prescription from a medical professional. Two main pillars now define compliance: (1) prescription requirements and mandatory reporting, and (2) Good Agricultural and Collection Practices (GACP). This article aims to summarize each essential element for the relevant parties. 1. Getting a Prescription: Digital Diagnosis vs. Real-World Paperwork? Dispensaries, even those with a license to sell cannabis, can no longer sell cannabis to walk-in customers who don’t have a valid prescription. Sales are lawful only when the buyer duly presents a cannabis prescription issued by one of seven recognized professional practitioners, including medical doctors, Thai traditional medicine doctors, applied Thai traditional medicine doctors, folk healers, Chinese medicine practitioners, pharmacists, or dentists. Notification 2025 does not mention teleconsultations or online prescriptions. Nonetheless, policymakers at this stage opine that an online chat or casual consultation, with the prescription sent via a social media platform or e-mail, would not comply with this latest regulation. In order to be eligible to issue cannabis prescriptions, medical doctors should be working in a clinic or hospital and should issue paper-based prescriptions. The official prescription form, called a PT 33, must be used. The prescriber has the discretion to indicate the cannabis strain (or product type), dosage, and intended duration of use, which cannot exceed 30 days per prescription. This ensures that the product matches the patient’s medical needs and aligns with professional treatment guidelines. In practice, each prescription will be valid for one-time use only and cannot be refilled; a new prescription will be required

Thailand’s Office of the Consumer Protection Board (OCPB) has initiated a sweeping regulatory review of licensed direct sale and direct marketing businesses in Thailand and is in the process of notifying business operators to submit their annual business report and financial statement to the OCPB as part of their postlicensing obligations. This move marks a significant escalation in the government’s efforts to enforce compliance and transparency in the sector, which has faced growing scrutiny in recent years. Key Regulatory Considerations All businesses holding a direct sales or direct marketing license are required to submit their audited financial statement along with their business operation report to the OCPB within 60 days from the end of their fiscal year (extendable for up to 30 days by request, if necessary). The OCPB is currently conducting license audits as part of its enforcement duties. The office aims to complete audits for at least 90% of the 2,983 registered businesses that have obtained their license since 2022. This includes a review of the business conduct of the license holder. New license applications are also under scrutiny. Applicants are currently being subjected to background checks, and the OCPB has signaled a more rigorous vetting process moving forward. Impact of Noncompliance Failure to comply with these reporting obligations may result in escalating enforcement actions, including: Official notice to rectify noncompliance within a specified timeframe. Revocation of business registration, if the operator fails to respond. Revocation of business registration could result in a five-year prohibition on reapplying for a direct sales or direct marketing license following the revocation. The OCPB has already initiated outreach efforts, including SMS and email notifications, and has hosted seminars to raise awareness of these obligations. These measures are part of a broader initiative to enhance transparency and consumer trust in the sector. Businesses operating in the direct selling and marketing space should take immediate steps to: Ensure timely submission of financial

Thailand’s National Space Policy Committee (NSPC) has proposed new regulations that would permit foreign satellite operators to provide services within the country. The draft announcement responds to rapid advancements in digital and space technologies that have led to new global satellite operators expanding their services worldwide, including into Thailand. These include low-Earth-orbit (LEO) satellite constellations offering high-speed internet, nonterrestrial network (NTN) technologies that integrate terrestrial and satellite communications, and direct-to-device (D2D) technologies that transmit signals directly from satellites to mobile devices without relying on terrestrial networks. The draft aims to replace the existing announcement, which was issued in 2021, to better align with current national policies on foreign satellite usage. The draft announcement was published for public consultation on August 20, 2025, with the comment period concluding on September 3, 2025. Applying for Authorization Two types of operators may apply for authorization: Thai operators who intend to use foreign satellites owned by World Trade Organization (WTO) member countries to provide satellite communication services to third parties; and Foreign operators of satellites owned by WTO member countries who intend to operate a business providing satellite communication services within Thailand. Applications for approval must be submitted to the National Broadcasting and Telecommunications Commission (NBTC) according to the NBTC’s established procedures. In considering whether to permit foreign satellites to provide services within Thailand, the relevant authority will take into account technical justifications, economic benefits, social benefits, and national security considerations. Determining Satellite Ownership The determination of which country qualifies as the owner of a satellite is based primarily on the country that holds the satellite network filing rights registered with the International Telecommunication Union (ITU). The satellite network filing includes details regarding frequency usage, orbital positions, and technical specifications of the satellite operations. It serves as a regulatory tool used by the ITU and its member states to manage the use

On August 26, 2025, the Thai cabinet approved a one-year postponement of mandatory contributions to the Employee Welfare Fund. Originally scheduled to take effect on October 1, 2025, the enforcement date has been deferred to October 1, 2026. The decision to delay the implementation stems from ongoing economic uncertainties in Thailand, driven by several external and domestic factors. These include increased trade tariffs imposed by the United States, the recent rise in the national minimum wage, and continued geopolitical tensions resulting from unresolved disputes with neighboring countries. These challenges have placed significant pressure on both businesses and the labor market, prompting the government to offer temporary relief through this deferral. As a result of the postponement, the following regulations will now come into effect on October 1, 2026: Royal Decree determining the Commencement Period for Savings and Contributions to the Employee Welfare Fund; Ministerial Notification specifying the Rates of Savings and Contributions; and Ministerial Notification outlining the Criteria and Procedures for Employers to Provide Assistance in Cases of Termination of Employment or Death. The Labour Welfare Fund Committee has formally endorsed the postponement. Contribution Rates Unchanged Although the implementation has been delayed, the contribution rates remain unchanged: October 1, 2026–September 30, 2031: Employers and employees each contribute 0.25% of the employee’s wage to the fund. From October 1, 2031, onward: Contributions increase to 0.5% of the employee’s wage for both parties. All other rules and conditions concerning the Employee Welfare Fund remain in full effect.

国際商標登録のためのマドリッド協定議定書制度は、単一の出願で複数国に商標を登録できる、簡素化された費用対効果の高い方法を提供している。インドネシアは2018年にマドリッド協定議定書制度に加盟し、2024年だけでも本制度を通じて8,600件以上の出願があった。本制度は効果的であるが、商標権者は登録手続中に発生する可能性のある拒絶リスクを認識することが重要である。商標出願人は、インドネシアを指定する際、これらの重要な点に細心の注意を払う必要がある。 応答のための現地代理人の任命 暫定拒絶通報を受けた国際登録出願の出願人または代理人は、暫定拒絶通報に対する応答するために、インドネシアの現地代理人を任命しなければならない。任命は、インドネシアにおける暫定拒絶通報への応答のみを目的としており、国際登録出願が暫定拒絶通報を受けていない場合は不要である。また、現地代理人はWIPOに登録しないことである。登録した場合、すべての指定国における代理人の登録に影響を及ぼすからである。 応答期間 暫定拒絶通報への応答期限の計算方法に関して、DGIPとWIPOの計算方法には相違がある。インドネシア商標法では、商標権者は週末と祝日を除く30営業日以内に応答可能である。しかしながら、 DGIPの暫定拒絶通報に添付されるWIPOのカバーレターには、暫定拒絶通報への応答開始日および応答期限の両方が記載されており、週末と祝日を含む30暦日として計算されている。したがって、この問題を回避するために、国際登録に関する暫定拒絶通報への応答は、WIPOのカバーレターに従って提出する必要がある。 拒絶理由 インドネシア商標公報に国際登録出願が掲載された後、知的財産権総局（DGIP: Directorate General of Intellectual Property）の審査官による実体審査が行われる。商標は主に、絶対的拒絶理由と相対的拒絶理由に基づいて審査される。 国際出願は通常、相対的拒絶理由、具体的にはインドネシアで先登録されている商標との類似性に基づいて拒絶される。潜在的なリスクを軽減し、効果的な戦略を策定するために、出願前に対象国で商標調査を実施することを提案する。 拒絶理由の解消 引用商標のステータスを確認することは、拒絶理由を解消するための戦略を決定する上で重要である。以下に、拒絶理由を解消するためのいくつかの戦略を示す。 回答の提出　拒絶理由に対する応答は、商品の外観、発音、概念、性質の違いに基づく意見書を提出することにより可能である。 抵触する区分の削除　複数区分出願において、1つの区分が拒絶されている場合、出願された全ての区分の審査が遅れる可能性がある。拒絶が出願全体ではなく特定の区分にのみ影響する場合、商標出願人は、抵触しない区分の登録手続を進めるために、拒絶された区分を削除することを検討する場合がある。 同意書（Letter of consent）または商標譲渡　DGIPは、出願人に対し、同意の証拠を提出して出願を裏付けることを推奨している。したがって、引用商標の所有者に連絡を取り、両商標の共同登録を認める同意書を取得することは、審査官の裁量により拒絶を回避できる選択肢となる可能性がある。同一企業グループ内の企業が所有する先登録商標との類似性により国際登録出願が拒絶された場合、商標所有者は、引用商標の所有権を譲渡するための譲渡記録を提出し、両商標を同一の所有者に帰属させることも可能である。 商標出願の補正および再出願　識別力を有する要素を追加したり、特定の商品を削除して、商標出願を再出願することは、引用商標との類似性を排除する効果的な戦略となり得る。引用商標の有効期限が近づいている場合、商標権者はその状況を監視することを検討すべきである。商標が更新されない場合は、国内ルートで出願を再出願することが現実的な選択肢となる場合がある。あるいは、インドネシアの領域指定を放棄し、新たにインドネシアの事後指定を申請することも可能である。 訴訟　商標所有者は、最後の手段として、引用商標に対して訴訟を起こすことができる。訴訟には、不使用取消や、類似性または悪意に基づく取消訴訟の訴訟の提起が含まれる。これらの訴訟は、インドネシア商事裁判所が管轄している。 応答に関する審査プロセス 応答が認容されると、DGIPの審査官は約3～6月以内に再審査を行う。この期間は審査官の作業量によって変動する場合がある。応答により拒絶理由が解消すると、出願は登録段階に進み、DGIPはWIPOを通じて登録代理人に直接、保護認容声明を発行する。 応答が棄却が却下された場合、DGIPの審査官は現地代理人および登録代理人に対し、拒絶の決定を発行する。出願人は、通知日から90営業日以内に商標審判委員会に審判を請求することができる。審判が請求されない場合、出願人は拒絶の決定を受諾したものとみなされる。審判が請求された場合、商標審判委員会は約4～6月以内に審理を行う。 結論 マドリッド協定の議定書制度を利用してインドネシアで商標登録手続を進めることは容易ではないが、適切な戦略と現地の専門知識があれば、問題なく対応できる。拒絶理由を理解し、それを克服するための様々な選択肢を検討することで、商標所有者は登録の可能性を大幅に高めることができる。スムーズで効率的な登録プロセスを確保するには、現地の弁護士に相談し、最新の動向を常に把握することが不可欠である。商標出願はそれぞれ異なるため、インドネシアでビジネス目標を達成するには、個々の状況に合わせたアプローチが鍵となる。   ご質問等があれば、Karenina Aulia ([email protected])、Wongrat Ratanaprayul ([email protected]）までお問合せください。   備考：本和文は英文記事を翻訳したものです。原文については、以下のリンクをご参照ください。 Responding to Refusal of an International Trademark Registration in Indonesia