Thailand’s Office of Insurance Commission (OIC) recently opened a public hearing on draft notifications regarding criteria, procedures, and conditions for naming life and non-life insurance brokerage businesses. The draft notifications aim to establish guidelines for naming and describing such brokerages. Key Principles Licensed insurance brokers must use “life insurance” or “non-life insurance” in their business name. When establishing an office, brokers must display a visible nameplate at the office front, starting out with the Thai words for “life insurance broker office” or “non-life insurance broker office” and the broker’s name; any signs indicating the office location must adhere to these same naming conventions. Inside, offices must display the insurance broker’s license and the power-of-attorney for receiving insurance premiums at the office. Noncompliance with these key principles may result in the OIC taking corrective action. Outlook After the draft notifications pass the public hearing stage, which closes on July 19, 2024, the OIC will consider the feedback and finalize the notifications. The duration of this process depends on the complexity of the notification and the public feedback. Normally, each notification takes at least 3–6 months before issuance. For more details on the OIC’s draft notifications or on any issue concerning insurance regulations in Thailand, please contact Athistha (Nop) Chitranukroh at [email protected], Witchupong Chittchang at [email protected], Ajaree Trachukul at [email protected], Thammapas Chanpanich at [email protected], or Sireethorn Wijan at [email protected].

Appeals of unfavorable decisions on protection in the IP field are very common in Vietnam. In 2023, there were 845 appeals filed at the IP Office, including 780 trademark appeals. In most cases, however, applicants view the appeal procedure as almost a last resort, as the lengthy examination process can lead to serious delays in appeal settlement. In fact, it can take four to seven years, or even longer, for an appeal to be resolved, and a disappointingly low number of cases are settled each year, despite the towering number of appeals pending. Nonetheless, there are reasons for optimism. Inspection and Appeal Department On 1 July 2024, the IP Office issued Decision No. 575/QD-SHTT promulgating the Regulations on Organization and Operation of the Inspection and Appeal Department – formerly the Enforcement and Appeal Department – whose functions include, among others, advising and assisting the Director General of the IP Office in resolving appeals related to the process of establishing IP rights. The Inspection and Appeal Department has the duty to handle appeals and denunciations related to the process of establishing IP rights, as well as requests for termination and cancellation of the validity of registrations. In addition, it can provide expert opinions, and appoint knowledgeable personnel to participate in the IP Office’s Advisory Council to settle appeals. While the renamed department’s responsibilities do not differ greatly, on paper, from those of the previous Enforcement and Appeal Department, the issuance of new regulations indicates the IP Office’s renewed focus on the importance of improving the appeal procedure. Scope of IP appeals expanded In addition, in November 2023, the Ministry of Science and Technology issued Circular No. 23/2023/TT-BKHCN (“Circular 23”) providing further guidance for implementation of the amended 2022 IP Law and its subordinate legislation. Article 35 of Circular 23 has clarified and extended the list of

Tilleke & Gibbins has contributed the Cambodia, Myanmar, Thailand, and Vietnam chapters to How the Use of Artificial Intelligence Is Regulated in Southeast Asia, a comparative resource published by Drew Network Asia (DNA). The guide provides an accessible introduction to artificial intelligence (AI) and examines how ASEAN member states are approaching governance, regulation, and responsible deployment of AI technologies. The publication begins by outlining core AI concepts and summarizing the ASEAN Guide on AI Governance and Ethics, which reflects the region’s collective approach to promoting innovation while addressing risks. It then presents a comparative overview of nine ASEAN jurisdictions, highlighting emerging national strategies, regulatory developments, and institutional frameworks. Each country chapter responds to a consistent set of ten practical questions. These cover whether a national AI strategy has been issued; the extent to which dedicated AI laws or sectoral regulations apply; the existence of relevant judicial decisions; available guidelines and government support schemes; regulators responsible for AI oversight; approaches to liability, copyright, and data protection; and key considerations for organizations deploying AI technologies. By consolidating developments across the region, the guide serves as a useful reference for businesses exploring AI-related opportunities or compliance obligations in Southeast Asia. As regulatory approaches continue to evolve, readers seeking jurisdiction-specific advice are encouraged to contact the practitioners listed in each chapter. The full guide is available for download using the button below or directly from the DNA website.

The need for privacy and security has grown in tandem with the rapid proliferation of internet-enabled technologies. This is a major concern for consumers and individuals, and governments are increasingly mindful of online threats to their national security and their citizens. All of this represents an imposing challenge for companies—especially now that technology has enabled them to operate with relative ease across jurisdictions throughout the world.

On July 3, 2024, the Committee on Contracts of Thailand’s Consumer Protection Board announced the Notification re: Stipulation of Cash-on-Delivery (COD) Logistics Services as a Controlled-Receipt Business under the Consumer Protection Act B.E. 2522 (1979). The notification regulates businesses “providing goods transportation services that collect cash on delivery,” which refers to business operators responsible for transporting goods from sender (i.e., the merchant of the goods) to consumer (i.e., the purchaser of the goods) and upon delivery collects payment from the consumer either in cash or via bank transfer. The obligations that the notification imposes on these business operators are described below. Receipts Business operators must prepare a receipt as evidence of payment according to the specified requirements and deliver it to the consumer immediately upon receiving payment for the goods. The receipt must include text in Thai that is clearly visible and legible, with a font size of at least two millimeters and no more than 11 characters per inch. The text must contain essential information and conditions as specified in the notification, including: The duration that the business operator will hold the money received from the consumer before releasing it to the sender; The timeframe within which the consumer must notify the business operator to return the goods and request a refund; Information about the employees who deliver the goods and collect payment from consumers; The name of the person authorized to issue the receipt; Details about the parcel specifying the nature of the goods, including the name, type, kind, characteristics, size, weight, quantity, color, volume or capacity, and price of the goods; and A statement that the consumer has the right to reject the delivered goods or receive a refund. The receipt also must not contain any statement prohibited by the notification. Examples include: Text stipulating that business operators and senders will not issue refunds; Statements prohibiting consumers from exchanging or

The landscape of intellectual property (IP) has transformed alongside advancements in technology, transitioning from traditional methods to modern online approaches. A growing number of IP infringers are moving their illegal activities to the online sphere, particularly through the sale of counterfeit goods on their websites, social media, or e-commerce platforms. In response to these shifting pressures, Thailand implemented the Computer-Related Crime Act B.E. 2550 (CCA) on July 18, 2007, and amended it in 2017, aiming to enhance the effectiveness of combating online infringement by empowering government officials to request that the court block computer data (called “website-blocking”) that infringes upon other parties’ intellectual property rights, as per section 20(3) of the CCA. From 2018 to May 2024, Thailand’s Criminal Court and Central Intellectual Property and International Trade Court have issued 53 orders to block more than 1,779 infringing URLs. One significant recent development is the Criminal Court’s establishment of the Technology Crime Division, which has been operating since April 1, 2024. Its purpose is to address criminal offenses that occur through electronic means, which should then be handled in an effective and prompt manner by judges who have expertise on technological crimes. In addition, several current measures to combat technology crime, including section 20(3) of the CCA, require court orders for the prevention of electronic criminal offenses or online infringement. The Technology Crime Division has the jurisdiction to consider and grant these orders, which will help expedite the approval process and ensure review by specialized judges. Scope of the Technology Crime Division The announcement of the establishment of the Technology Crime Division within the Criminal Court was published in the Government Gazette on March 18, 2024, with operations commencing on April 1, 2024. The Technology Crime Division is empowered to: Consider and adjudicate technology crime cases, except cases falling under the jurisdiction of the

In this chapter from Eversheds Sutherland’s Global Freezing Order Guide, attorneys from Tilleke & Gibbins provide answers to common questions regarding civil freezing orders and their particulars in Thailand. 1. Are freezing orders (or their equivalent referred to below) available in civil legal proceedings in this jurisdiction and what is their effect? Yes. The effect of a freezing order is that the respondent is prohibited from transferring or disposing of the assets referred to in the freezing order until a specified time (for example, a further hearing, a judgment or payment) or a further order of the Court. The property subject to a freezing order may include the property in dispute or the respondent’s property, including money or property owed to the respondent by a third party. Thai law is silent on the issue of whether a freezing order issued by a Thai Court could potentially apply to assets located outside of Thailand. In light of this, in practice, a Thai Court is unlikely to include assets located outside of Thailand in a freezing order. It is possible that a Thai Court could order a respondent over whom it has jurisdiction not to transfer any property or other assets located abroad, however, enforceability may be difficult, with limited consequences where the respondent refused to comply with such an order. 2. Are other interim orders commonly made in conjunction with a freezing (or equivalent) order? No. The Court does not typically place obligations on the respondent to provide disclosure of the nature, value and location of his, her or its assets, with the onus being on the applicant to provide the Court with the information available. 3. Briefly what is the relevant legal test? The applicant has to prove that there is good cause for the complaint. The applicant must also prove that the respondent

In April 2024, Vietnam’s Ministry of Finance published a draft circular concerning securities transactions, clearing and settlement of securities transactions, activities of securities companies, and information disclosure on the securities market (the “Draft Circular”) for public feedback. The Draft Circular, if adopted, will amend several regulations impacting public companies and the securities market. Some of the more notable amendments are discussed below. Relaxing Pre-Funding Requirement for Foreign Institutional Investors To place orders to purchase securities, investors are currently required to have sufficient cash in their securities trading accounts to pay 100% of the cost of the transaction, except in cases of: Margin trading (applicable to Vietnamese investors only); and Transactions in which there is a settlement guarantee or confirmation from the custodian bank on accepting the settlement request. The Draft Circular allows foreign institutional investors (“FIIs”) to purchase securities without 100% pre-funding their securities trading accounts, based on a signed agreement with a securities company. However, the State Securities Commission of Vietnam (“SSC”) has the right to temporarily reinstate the 100% pre-funding requirement if measures for securities market stabilization are required. The Draft Circular also specifies that securities companies must (i) assess the capacity of FIIs to determine the pre-funding requirement under relevant agreements signed between them, and (ii) be responsible to settle the shortfall of a securities purchase order through their proprietary trading account(s) if the FIIs are unable to fully pay for such securities purchase order, except in certain circumstances. Further, a securities company cannot directly exempt or authorize other entities to exempt an FII from the 100% pre-funding requirement if the FII purchases securities of (i) such securities company, (ii) a company in which such securities company is a majority shareholder, or (iii) the parent company of such securities company. The 100% pre-funding requirement for FIIs in securities trading under the prevailing laws is