As modern business strategies increasingly embrace sustainability, the influence of ESG principles is reshaping product design, packaging, and brand protection. From label-free bottles to the legal importance of 3D marks in Thailand, these developments highlight the growing connection between environmental responsibility and intellectual property. The Rise of ESG ESG principles have become critical in shaping business strategies worldwide. Companies are increasingly required to disclose ESG data, which influences investor decisions, loans, and consumer behavior. Studies show that consumers are willing to pay more for sustainable packaging, and businesses with strong ESG commitments often achieve higher growth rates. Product Minimization Trend One sector experiencing significant transformation is the consumer product industry, where brands worldwide are adapting their packaging to align with ESG principles. A notable approach is packaging minimization, exemplified by Pepsi’s introduction of its first label-free PET bottle in China in 2022. Similarly, in Thailand, several bottled water brands have embraced label-free designs, including Sprinkle drinking water’s “Redesign to Reduce” initiative and other similar efforts. These shifts not only enhance brand perception but are also warmly welcomed by consumers and business associates alike. For instance, Cathay Pacific has introduced label-free bottled water on select flights and cabins as part of their ongoing commitment to boosting onboard recycling efforts. From Design to Distinctiveness with 3D Marks Packaging has evolved into a critical component of brand identity, blending functionality with distinctiveness to strengthen consumer recognition and loyalty. This shift carries significant implications for intellectual property. Protecting these designs is no longer optional but essential, given their substantial commercial value. Securing legal protection—whether through design rights or three-dimensional (3D) trademarks—has become a strategic necessity. In an era shaped by sustainability and innovation, safeguarding distinctive packaging is not just a precaution but a fundamental step in maintaining competitive advantage and ensuring enduring brand success. In Thailand, businesses can register 3D marks

In Thailand, in-court business rehabilitation is a legal proceeding that enhances a debtor’s chance to restructure business operations for corporate debtors who are unable to repay their debts. The purpose of this proceeding is to allow the debtor to continue operating the business and generate income to repay creditors. The amounts that creditors receive in the rehabilitation proceeding are greater than the amounts creditors would receive if the debtor went bankrupt. The law is not designed to allow debtors or creditors to use the business rehabilitation process in bad faith for their benefit or to defraud another party. Accordingly, the Business Rehabilitation Law, which is included in the Thai Bankruptcy Act B.E. 2483 (1940), provides criminal liability for actions taken before or during the process. This article addresses the key points regarding criminal liability for safeguarding debtors and creditors in business rehabilitation proceedings from any parties who act in bad faith. Criminal Liability in Business Rehabilitation The following provisions establish the framework for criminal liability in business rehabilitation cases, ensuring that all parties act with integrity throughout the process. The Bankruptcy Act of Thailand B.E. 2483 (1940) provides the relevant provisions regarding the business rehabilitation process. Additionally, if a company debtor or its authorized directors are found to have committed fraud or malfeasance under the Bankruptcy Act, they can also be held criminally liable under the Penal Code or related criminal statutes. The rehabilitation process aims to help a business recover financially under the supervision of the court. When the court approves the rehabilitation plan, the court appoints a business rehabilitation plan administrator to manage and implement the process. However, if it is discovered that the debtor, its executives, or even the plan administrator engaged in illegal activities prior to or during the rehabilitation process—such as tax evasion, embezzlement, fraud, or bribery—criminal charges may

Generative artificial intelligence (GenAI) is no longer a distant innovation confined to science fiction and research labs; it has become an integral part of daily business operations worldwide. Employees across industries are adopting GenAI tools at a remarkable pace—including in Southeast Asia, where a tech-savvy workforce and widespread internet and mobile access have driven early adoption. The reality facing organizations today is clear: employees are integrating GenAI into their daily work, often without official approval or clear policies. This phenomenon, often called “Bring Your Own AI,” comes out of a disconnect between organizational governance and employee behavior and reveals the urgent need for proactive AI policies and oversight. For business leaders and legal teams, GenAI is both an opportunity and a challenge. On one hand, these tools can deliver real business value and boost efficiency. On the other, the unsanctioned and unmonitored use of GenAI introduces substantial legal risks, such as data privacy violations, confidentiality breaches, and intellectual property issues. The widespread adoption of GenAI tools by employees, regardless of official organizational stance or guidelines, demonstrates that prohibition is neither practical nor effective. A more strategic approach involves establishing comprehensive governance policies that encourage responsible AI use while managing the risks. Organizations that take the lead in developing GenAI governance policies are better positioned to benefit from its transformative potential. The question isn’t whether GenAI will change how we work, but how quickly organizations can put the right safeguards in place to manage this change successfully. Risks of GenAI Use The use of GenAI in business operations, whether sanctioned or not, exposes organizations to a unique set of risks. The following are particularly relevant: Data security and confidentiality: General GenAI tools in the market may transmit data to external servers, retain conversation histories, and use inputs for model training. Further, employees may share confidential organization or

Insurance specialists from Tilleke & Gibbins in Bangkok have contributed the Thailand chapter to the newly released 2025 edition of Thomson Reuters’ Practical Law guide to insurance and reinsurance. The Thailand chapter offers a comprehensive Q&A-style overview of the legal and regulatory framework governing insurance and reinsurance in the country. It provides key insights for businesses, insurers, reinsurers, and intermediaries operating in or entering the Thai market. Key topics covered include: Market structure and common types of insurance; Regulatory framework and oversight by the Office of Insurance Commission (OIC); Authorisation requirements for insurers, reinsurers, and intermediaries; Ownership restrictions and foreign investment rules; Corporate governance, capital requirements, and solvency obligations; Reinsurance arrangements, including fronting, risk transfer, and common contractual clauses; Policy content requirements, standard clauses, and consumer protections; Claims procedures, statutory time limits, and subrogation rights; Dispute resolution mechanisms, including OIC arbitration and court proceedings; Insolvency protections for policyholders; Tax treatment of insurance and reinsurance businesses in Thailand; Recent legal developments, including pending amendments to the Life and Non-Life Insurance Acts and updated OIC regulations on reinsurance and investment activities. The 2025 edition reflects Thailand’s evolving regulatory environment, including proposed legislative reforms to strengthen corporate governance, risk-based capital requirements, and financial stability in the insurance sector. It also highlights practical considerations for foreign insurers, reinsurers, and intermediaries seeking to participate in Thailand’s insurance market. Tilleke & Gibbins contributes regularly to the Practical Law series of guides for various jurisdictions in Southeast Asia, providing trusted legal insight for multinational companies. To access the latest Thailand chapter of the insurance and reinsurance guide, please visit the Practical Law website and enroll in the free Practical Law trial to gain full access.

In a decisive move to strengthen its trade position and reinforce commitments under ongoing tariff negotiations with the United States, the government of Vietnam has made a concerted effort to improve intellectual property enforcement within the country. A key catalyst for this was the prime minister issuing a decision requesting all authorities to initiate sweeping enforcement actions to crack down on counterfeit goods across all provinces. Our firm has been actively involved in these operations. Working in close coordination with Vietnam’s Market Surveillance Authority, Customs, and Border Police, the firm has been instrumental in planning, intelligence gathering, and on-site enforcement. Key operations were conducted in major commercial hubs, including Hanoi and Ho Chi Minh City. In Hanoi, we collaborated with Market Surveillance Team No. 1 to inspect a major wholesaler in Hang Giay. These inspections resulted in the seizure of a significant volume of counterfeit perfumes and the identification of key suppliers within the illegal trade network. In Ho Chi Minh City, our firm supported large-scale inspection campaigns at well-known markets, including Saigon Square. Acting on intelligence, authorities executed multiple raids targeting shops and stalls notorious for selling counterfeit branded products. Specialists from our firm provided logistical support and real-time analysis to ensure swift and effective intervention. Beyond Vietnam’s urban centers, efforts extended to critical border zones in northern and central Vietnam. We worked with Customs and Border Police at major checkpoints to inspect high-risk shipments suspected of containing counterfeit goods. These operations led to the interception of several container loads of illicit products. The nationwide campaign also included targeted actions in several provinces known as hubs for storage and distribution. In Bac Giang, Da Nang, Hai Phong, Kien Giang, and Dong Nai, we assisted in coordinated raids on medium- to large-scale warehouses and distribution centers. These inspections uncovered extensive counterfeit inventories, leading to

The Bank of Thailand (BOT) has released draft guidelines establishing principles for managing artificial intelligence (AI) risks in the financial sector. The draft guidelines provide a structured framework for the responsible adoption of AI technologies. Financial service providers will be able to use the guidelines as a reference to appropriately manage their risks in a manner that aligns with internationally recognized best practices. The BOT is accepting public comments on the draft guidelines until June 30, 2025. Scope and Application The draft guidelines apply to all financial service providers, including financial institutions and special financial institutions under the Financial Institution Business Act, as well as payment providers under the Payment Systems Act. These guidelines supplement existing BOT risk management guidelines covering IT risk management, third-party risk management, data governance, and market conduct. The guidelines define AI systems as systems that mimic human intelligence, including machine learning, deep learning, generative AI (such as large language models), and agentic AI. This definition specifically excludes rule-based automation systems like robotic process automation and condition matching. Key Risk Management Principles The guidelines lay out two main principles in managing AI risk. Governance: Financial service providers should define and establish clear roles and responsibilities for their personnel and AI system supervision structures to uphold FEAT (fairness, ethics, accountability, and transparency) principles as follows: Stakeholder roles and responsibilities. Financial service providers should define roles and responsibilities for boards and executives on AI risk oversight. Responsibilities include establishing an AI system usage policy, designating personnel responsible for AI risk management, and building awareness of AI-related risk within the organization. AI system usage policy. The AI system usage policy should be aligned with organizational objectives, regulatory requirements, and FEAT principles. These policies should be reviewed regularly to respond to technological advancements and evolving risk profiles. Risk management throughout the AI lifecycle. Risk management should encompass the entire

Thailand’s Electronic Transactions Development Agency (ETDA) has announced plans for increased enforcement of the Royal Decree on the Operation of Digital Platform Service Businesses That Are Subject to Prior Notification B.E. 2565 (2022). The ETDA outlined a comprehensive enforcement framework and review process during an online meeting with digital platform service operators on June 11, 2025. The ETDA’s enhanced enforcement approach includes systematic reviews of notification submissions, formal correction orders, and potential criminal penalties for noncompliance. Digital platform operators should immediately assess their current notification status and prepare for increased regulatory scrutiny. Review and Amendment of Previously Submitted Notification Data The ETDA will begin reviewing operation notification forms and annual reports submitted by digital platform service operators to assess each platform’s risk level and develop tailored regulatory obligations. In this comprehensive review process, the ETDA will: Examine the accuracy and completeness of submitted notification data; Request additional information as needed by phone or email; and Issue formal orders as needed requiring operators to correct or complete missing information. Operators who fail to comply with ETDA orders may face suspension of operations, revocation of their notification receipt, and public disclosure of their noncompliant status on the ETDA’s website. The ETDA will conduct follow-up workshops in July 2025 for operators whose data remains unclear or incomplete. Enforcement Framework and Penalties The ETDA outlined a three-tiered enforcement framework with escalating consequences for different types of violations, as follows: Failure to notify before commencing operations: Operators who begin services without proper notification may face criminal penalties under the Electronic Transactions Act, including up to one year of imprisonment, fines of up to THB 100,000 (approx. USD 3,070), or both. Additional consequences include suspension of operations and potential liability for company directors. Failure to correct or comply with official orders: Noncompliance with ETDA correction orders may result in suspension until corrections are made, prohibition of