2024年7月17日、タイは、退職した従業員に対する退職手当に関する個人所得税の非課税金額を引き上げるために、歳入税に関する歳入法に基づく省令394号（B.E.2567）（Ministerial Regulation under the Revenue Code regarding Revenue Tax No. 394 (B.E. 2567)）を公布しました。 本省令に基づき、退職した従業員は、60万タイバーツを上限として、過去400日間の賃金に相当する退職手当の金額を上限として、退職手当の個人所得税が免除されます。この非課税措置は、定年退職又は有期雇用契約の満了に関する退職手当には適用されません。 従前、1998年から適用されていたこの非課税措置は、過去300日分の賃金に相当する金額にのみ適用され、上限は30万タイバーツでした。これにより、労働保護法（Labor Protection Act B.E.2541 (LPA) ）に規定された退職手当の最高賃金率と一致させていました。しかしながら、2019年にLPAが改正された際、退職手当の最高賃金率は、10年以上勤務した者の過去300日分の賃金に相当する率から、20年以上勤務した者の過去400日分の賃金に相当する率に引き上げられました。現在の省令は、改定された退職手当の賃金率に合わせるとともに、タイのインフレ率の上昇を考慮して制定されました。 新しい非課税率は、2023年1月1日以降に受領した課税所得に適用されます。2023年に源泉徴収され、2024年に申告された退職手当の超過分については、税務局の説明に従って、個人は税務局に還付を請求することができます。これは、所得税申告書への申告期限から3年以内に、適用される手続に従って行う必要があります。 退職手当の非課税措置、又はタイの雇用法に関する詳細については、Pimvimol Vipamaneerut（[email protected]）、Ketnut Pukahuta（[email protected]）、Dusita Khanijou（[email protected]）、又はChomanut Arif（[email protected]）までお問い合わせください。   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。 Thailand Adjusts Income Tax Exemption for Severance Pay

In recent years, Thailand has witnessed a significant transformation in its financial landscape, particularly in the rapid adoption of financial technology (fintech). At the forefront of this evolution are electronic payment systems and services, which have revolutionized how individuals and businesses conduct financial transactions. This transformation has been driven by both traditional financial institutions and alternative financial service operators. Overseeing this dynamic landscape are two primary regulators: the Bank of Thailand (BOT) and the Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC). This article explores the development of electronic payment systems in Thailand, with a particular focus on the Payment Systems Act (PSA) of 2017 and its role in shaping the fintech ecosystem. Payment Systems Act In October 2017, Thailand took a significant step forward in regulating its burgeoning electronic payment sector by adopting the Payment Systems Act. This landmark legislation was designed to create and ensure electronic payment system stability and enhance consumer protection in the digital financial realm. The PSA establishes a comprehensive framework by categorizing electronic payment businesses into two main categories: payment systems and payment services. Electronic Payment Systems under the PSA The PSA recognizes two types of electronic payment systems that require specific licenses or registration: Central or network systems. These include systems that act as a center or network between service users for fund transfers, clearing, or settlement. Examples include: Inter-institution Fund Transfer System Payment card networks Settlement systems Systems of public interest. This category encompasses any other payment systems that may affect public interest, public confidence, or the stability and security of the payment infrastructure. Electronic Payment Services under the PSA The PSA also identifies several electronic payment services that require specific licenses or registration: Credit cards, debit cards, and ATM cards Electronic money E-payments Acquisition Payment facilitation Receipt of payment on behalf of others Electronic fund transfer Other payment services that may affect financial systems or public interest Looking Ahead As Thailand continues to embrace digital transformation

The popularity of the franchise business model has been growing rapidly in Southeast Asia in recent years, with some of the world’s top brands becoming common sights in the commercial districts and shopping malls of major regional cities in Cambodia, Indonesia, Laos, Myanmar, Thailand, and Vietnam. While for most countries in this part of the world, franchising has not been explicitly mentioned in legislation, well prepared franchise business operations can comfortably adapt to each country’s regulatory framework, and the growth is poised to continue even as the global retail sector redesigns and redoubles its efforts in the wake of the COVID-19 outbreak. In fact, the franchise business model, which is both global and hyper-local at once, is one of the most promising solutions that entrepreneurs are turning to in their quest to overcome the challenges of the new economic reality. The Regional Guide to Franchising Law in Southeast Asia provides key, up-to-date insights into the legal frameworks regulating franchise operations in these Southeast Asian countries, and helps brand owners understand the most relevant laws, authorities, and procedures for their business. Some of the essential topics covered for each jurisdiction include considerations in negotiating and designing franchise agreements, protecting intellectual property rights, and important information on judicial and arbitral procedures should a dispute arise between franchisor and franchisee. Practitioners from Tilleke & Gibbins’ offices in Cambodia, Indonesia, Laos, Myanmar, Thailand, and Vietnam contributed to guide—not only by providing legal expertise on the laws and mechanisms applicable in each jurisdiction, but also by examining strategies for establishing and running resilient franchise operations in Southeast Asia. The full guide can be accessed as a PDF through the button below.

Addressing technical barriers to trade is a key priority for the Association of Southeast Asian Nations (ASEAN) as part of trade facilitation in achieving the single market and production base under the ASEAN Economic Community directive agreed in 2015. The region has been undertaking positive steps toward standard harmonization in ASEAN priority sectors, integrating and bringing about regulatory convergence by taking into account the diversities that exist in the ten ASEAN member states. Health supplements in ASEAN are under the responsibility of the Traditional Medicine and Health Supplement Product Working Group (TMHS PWG). One of the TMHS PWG’s outputs is the ASEAN Agreement on a Regulatory Framework for Health Supplements, which includes various technical requirements for health supplements that participating member states must adopt by adjusting their domestic regulations. The key ingredients of these health supplements are vitamins and minerals. While all ASEAN countries allow the use of vitamins and minerals in health supplements, the amounts allowed for use vary, depending on the nutritional requirements deemed appropriate by each country. Partly in response to these efforts for regional harmonization, there have been important changes to vitamin and mineral limits in certain ASEAN countries that are worth monitoring. Some of these are outlined below. Thailand In January 2024, the Thai Food and Drug Administration (TFDA) updated the Thai Recommended Daily Intake (Thai RDI) guidelines for the Thai population. Subsequently, the TFDA adjusted the vitamin and mineral limits in order to comply with the updated Thai RDI and to follow the ASEAN Agreement on a Regulatory Framework for Health Supplements. The TFDA’s adjustment of vitamin and mineral limits for use in food supplements came in Notification of the Ministry of Public Health (No. 448) B.E. 2566 (2023) Re: Food Supplements (No. 5), which was published in the Government Gazette on January 4, 2024. It increased the maximum

Government Regulation No. 28 of 2024 (“GR No. 28”) was issued on July 26, 2024, to implement Law No. 17 of 2023 on Health (the “Omnibus Health Law”). GR No. 28 contains extensive provisions on tobacco products and electronic cigarettes in an effort to reduce the health risks associated with addictive substances, decrease the prevalence of smokers, and prevent the initiation of smoking among beginners in Indonesia. The Indonesian FDA (known as “BPOM”) is working to implement the relevant provisions in GR No. 28 and has subsequently issued a draft regulation on the control and distribution of tobacco products and electronic cigarettes. This draft regulation is set to replace current BPOM Regulation No. 41 of 2013, which only covered tobacco products. The new draft regulation, however, also incorporates rules on electronic cigarettes. This article outlines some of the measures on electronic cigarettes contained in GR No. 28 and the draft implementing regulation, focusing particularly on testing and reporting requirements, sale and pack size requirements, and labeling and advertising requirements. Testing and Reporting The draft regulation requires that each variant of electronic cigarettes produced or imported be tested for nicotine content. These tests must be conducted in an accredited laboratory, and the results must be reported to BPOM. The use of additive materials is prohibited unless they have been proven safe for public health. To enforce this, electronic cigarettes must be tested for the presence of prohibited additives before they are distributed. Additionally, a verification of the content of prohibited additives must be conducted during the distribution period, with the testing and verification being carried out in different laboratories. The results of both tests (i.e., the pre-distribution test and the subsequent verification) must be reported to BPOM. Sale and Pack Size GR No. 28 prohibits the sale of electronic cigarettes: Via self-service machines; To individuals under the age of

As in many other countries, registered trademarks in Indonesia that are not used for a given period of time can be canceled. A recent decision (Decision No. 144/PUU-XXI/2023) from the country’s Constitutional Court has extended the non-use cancellation period from three years to five years, applicable from July 30, 2024. This ruling could have a major impact on trademark holders in the country. Background of the Case Article 74 of Indonesia’s Trademark Law of 2016 specifies that trademarks can be canceled if they go unused in the trade of goods or services for three consecutive years from the date of registration or last use. This provision is aligned with the Paris Convention and the TRIPs Agreement. On October 27, 2023, an Indonesian individual named Ricky Thio asked the Constitutional Court to examine the constitutionality of Article 74, arguing that it opened a pathway for third parties to eliminate trademarks owned by small and medium-sized enterprises (SMEs), and did not provide certainty to his registered trademark in terms of the period of protection. Additionally, he argued that the period of three consecutive years was burdensome for SMEs, and asked the court to void Article 74 and add force majeure circumstances—such as Covid-19—as an exemption to non-use cancellation. Mr. Thio submitted this request while he was defending his trademark registration from a non-use cancellation request filed by Zhejiang Dahua Technology Co., Ltd. In his defense to that cancellation request, Mr. Thio explained that the non-use of the trademark was due to the Covid-19 pandemic. The cancellation case followed a different judicial pathway, and was under appeal before the Supreme Court at the time Mr. Thio filed his request for judicial review with the Constitutional Court. Mr. Thio’s case also attracted the submission of an amicus brief—a relatively new trend in Indonesia—from two IP consultants in the

In 2023, Vietnam’s Intellectual Property Rights Infringement Prevention Cooperation Program reported that 776 cases of IPR infringement were resolved nationwide. Of these, 546 were addressed through administrative measures, while criminal proceedings were initiated in just five cases. These statistics clearly show that administrative measures overwhelmingly dominate the response to counterfeit goods, with criminal actions being relatively rare. This raises an intriguing question: Why do IPR holders prefer administrative routes over criminal measures in Vietnam? And what challenges and obstacles make criminal enforcement less commonly pursued in these cases? Overlapping legal provisions Under Vietnam’s Penal Code, two key offenses address counterfeit goods: Manufacturing and trading in counterfeit goods under Article 192. Manufacturing and trading in industrial property rights-infringing goods under Article 226. Both provisions regulate counterfeit goods, yet they suffer from a lack of clear definitions and guidelines for application. Article 192 does not explicitly define “counterfeit goods”. Instead, authorities refer to Article 3.7 of Decree No. 98/2020/ND-CP, as amended, which outlines several categories of counterfeit goods, including: (i) utility counterfeits (goods not meeting normal expectations of usage or function), (ii) substandard goods, (iii) counterfeit goods based on misrepresentation, and (iv) counterfeit stamps, labels, and packaging. Meanwhile, Article 226 specifically deals with counterfeit goods that infringe trademark rights. These “trademark-counterfeit goods” are defined under Article 213.2 of the IP Law as goods or packaging bearing trademarks or signs that are identical or confusingly similar to protected trademarks for the same goods, used without the trademark owner’s permission. In this regard, “counterfeit goods” and “trademark-counterfeit goods” are treated as distinct, non-overlapping concepts, each corresponding to a separate offense. However, in practice, there is often a gray area where the two overlap. Many cases involve infringing goods that meet the criteria for both categories, allowing authorities to apply both regulations simultaneously. For instance, if a manufacturer produces cosmetic products using a

With the emergence of online marketplaces and e-commerce platforms, consumers have transformed their ways of engaging in transactions, gaining unprecedented convenience and access to a vast array of products. These platforms allow small businesses and individual entrepreneurs to reach a wider audience in an increasingly competitive market. Challenges in Tracing Online Infringers The growth of these online marketplaces and e-commerce platforms has also given rise to challenges, particularly in locating the actual identity of online infringers and combating intellectual property infringement activities. Online infringers often take advantage of anonymity to offer counterfeit products for sale on their platforms. Not only do these online infringing activities violate the rights of IP owners, but they also involve the sale of counterfeit products that are often manufactured with inferior quality and may pose significant risks to consumers’ health and safety. In today’s modern world, tracing the actual identity of online infringers proves challenging, as infringers adopt numerous methods to conceal their identity. The most frequently used method is using a fake name and address when dispatching parcels to consumers, making it difficult to verify the seller’s identity and the location of the sender on the parcel package. Some infringers exploit cash-on-delivery logistics services to prevent the disclosure of their identity, such as bank account numbers and bank account owner names, which would typically be required for direct payments. Instead, the shipping company collects the payment on their behalf, allowing the infringers to remain anonymous and making it more difficult to find their actual identity. Thailand’s New Regulations on Cash-on-Delivery Logistics Services Recently, the Committee on Contracts of Thailand’s Consumer Protection Board announced the Notification regarding Stipulation of Cash-on-Delivery Logistics Services as a Controlled-Receipt Business B.E. 2567 (2024) under the Consumer Protection Act B.E. 2522 (1979) in the Thai Royal Gazette dated July 3, 2024. This notification will