As non-cash payments continue to surge in Vietnam, the requirement for strong security standards and a clear legislative framework for intermediary payment services (“IPS”) is becoming more and more critical. Recognizing this, the State Bank of Vietnam (“SBV”) has been working on a draft decree to supersede the outdated Decree No. 101/2012/ND-CP dated November 22, 2012, on non-cash payments (“Draft Non-Cash Payment Decree”), which will lay the groundwork for non-cash payments in general and the provision of IPS in particular. Building upon this, the SBV recently issued a draft circular to replace Circular No. 39/2014/TT-NHNN dated December 11, 2014, on IPS (“Circular 39”) (“Draft IPS Circular”), which will offer more detailed guidance on the provision of IPS in Vietnam on top of the Draft Non-Cash Payment Decree. The Draft IPS Circular will be applicable to (i) IPS providers; (ii) foreign organizations providing IPS in Vietnam; and (iii) organizations and individuals involved in the provision of IPS. Some key updates regarding the Draft IPS Circular are as follows: Scope of Application The Draft IPS Circular sets out further guidance for the provision of IPS as listed under the Draft Non-Cash Payment Decree, including: (i) electronic clearing services; (ii) electronic wallet (“e-wallet”) services; (iii) collection and payment support services; (iv) financial switching services; (v) international financial switching services; and (vi) electronic payment gateway services. Notably, the Draft IPS Circular has explicitly excluded from its scope of application the provision of accounts by goods/service providers to their customers solely for the purpose of payment within the systems of such providers (e.g., cards/coupons or service/transaction accounts of online game service providers, transportation service providers, or securities companies, etc.). Requirements on the Provision of IPS Electronic Clearing Services: The Draft IPS Circular introduces regulations to cover certain elements of electronic clearing services that have not been explicitly outlined in Circular 39.

On April 29, 2024, Thailand’s Office of the Personal Data Protection Committee (PDPC) issued the master plan for personal data protection, which outlines the PDPC’s strategies for developing and enhancing the data protection framework in Thailand from 2024 to 2027. A draft of this four-year plan had previously been released for a public hearing on November 27, 2023. Overview The master plan sets out the long-term direction for the protection of personal data in Thailand, analyzing the current landscape, challenges, and obstacles encountered since the full enactment of the Personal Data Protection Act B.E. 2562 (2019) (PDPA). It aims to align with Thailand’s National Security Policy and Plan for 2024–2027 and focuses on key sectors in its initial two years. These sectors are: Public security and key government services; Retail and e-commerce; Information and communication technology and telecommunications; Finance, investment, and insurance; Public health; Tourism; and Education. Objectives The master plan’s goals include increasing organizational compliance with the PDPA, reducing data breaches, updating the PDPA to reflect current circumstances, introducing various PDPC e-services, and enhancing Thailand’s global competitiveness in data privacy and personal data protection. It sets targets and indicators of the plan’s success, such as achieving a 100% PDPA compliance rate across all sectors in Thailand and raising Thailand’s digital competitiveness to at least 30th in the World Digital Competitiveness Rankings from the IMD World Competitiveness Center. Strategic Initiatives To achieve these objectives, the master plan introduces four strategic initiatives: Effective and balanced PDPA enforcement: Develop standards, principles, criteria, tools, indicators, and data privacy governance, including law enhancements. A recent example of this is the PDPC’s launch of the Personal Data Protection Surveillance Centre (PDPC Eagle Eye) to monitor data breaches. Knowledge and trust enhancement: Build human capacity and trust by enhancing knowledge through initiatives like the forthcoming data protection officer (DPO) course that is certified by the PDPC. Digital economy and society promotion:

Vietnam’s Ministry of Public Security (MPS) recently published on its website a dossier of the Draft Law on Data (the “Draft Law”) for public feedback, initiating a consultation period from February 26 to March 26, 2024. The dossier comprises a Policy Impact Assessment Report and a Summary Report on the implementation of existing legal documents governing data. An outline of the Draft Law was later circulated to relevant organizations for their input and commentary. The MPS drafted this legislation with several objectives, including bolstering national data infrastructure, advancing digital government while streamlining administrative procedures, fostering growth in the digital economy and building a digital society, and establishing a National Data Center. Comprising 65 articles across 6 chapters, the Draft Law is slated for implementation on January 1, 2026. The Draft Law currently is very preliminary, resembling a framework document. It features numerous provisions akin to policy mandates, yet only presents introductory concepts without further elaboration. Scope of Application The Draft Law applies to agencies, organizations, and individuals involved in data activities in Vietnam. This scope of application appears excessively broad and ambiguous, without a clear definition of “data activities”, leaving uncertainty regarding the breadth of this term’s coverage. Key Policy Groups The Draft Law focuses on four key policy groups: 1. Regulations on development, processing, and management of data This policy group focuses on matters relating to the collection, digitalization, and creation of data; assurance of data quality; data classification; data storage; data combination, adjustment, and updating; data strategy; data management; data sharing; provision of data to state agencies; data analysis and synthesis; data verification and authentication; data disclosure; access and retrieval of data; data encryption and decryption; data copying, transmission, and transfer; data revocation, deletion, and destruction; application of science and technology in data processing; identification and management of risks in data processing; the National Data

On May 1, 2024, Myanmar’s Intellectual Property Department (IPD) issued its first publication of trademark applications under the country’s 2019 Trademark Law. Parties are now able to oppose any of the applied-for marks in the publication, which is accessible from the IPD’s website, in accordance with stipulations of Myanmar law. This is a substantial development showing progress toward the registration of marks under the Trademark Law. The online publication of the applications provides the details of each mark, applicant, and representative. In addition, it discloses relevant information such as disclaimers, color claims, mark translations or transliterations, applicable priority dates, as well as specifications of goods and services under the Nice Classification. Any person (individual or legal entity) can file an opposition against an applied-for mark within 60 days of publication by citing significant absolute or relative grounds as specified in the relevant sections of the Trademark Law. Oppositions must use the official form specified in the Trademark Rules, and the filing fee is MMK 150,000 per mark (regardless of the number of classes) plus a MMK 300 bank charge. Anyone, including interested parties or their local representatives, can file the opposition at the IPD. If an opposition is not filed within the stipulated 60-day period, the IPD will proceed with the trademark registration without conducting any substantive examination for similarity or priority. Thus, mark owners, rights holders, and other interested parties should closely monitor the IPD’s publication of applied-for marks so they can take any necessary actions and potentially file oppositions to protect their rights and interests. There has not yet been any official announcement on how often these publications will be issued. For more information on the IPD’s mark publication activities, or on any aspect of protecting intellectual property in Myanmar, please contact Tilleke & Gibbins at [email protected].

The Thai Arbitration Institute (TAI) announced on April 19, 2024, that it has jointly set up an in-court arbitration pilot project with five courts in Thailand—namely, the Civil Court, Taling Chan Civil Court, Central Intellectual Property and International Trade Court, Samut Prakan Provincial Court, and Samut Prakan Khwaeng Court. The pilot project launched on May 1, 2024. Pilot Project This project is designed to encourage the parties in cases submitted to these courts to consider having parts of the case, or even the entire case, heard and determined by arbitrators under the Civil Procedural Code (CPC). The objective of the project is to provide faster and more efficient judicial services to the public by reducing the number of cases to be fully tried in the courts through providing an option for parties to engage in in-court arbitration. Still, the court remains largely involved in the process, as the court will consider the award in detail before determining whether to render a judgment in accordance with the award without any edits. Therefore, in-court arbitration favors parties who prefer to have a court judgment instead of an out-of-court arbitral award, which could lead to enforcement challenges under the Arbitration Act. Parties who participate in this pilot project will pay the TAI a fee for its administrative assistance and related services. The TAI will assist in setting up and facilitating meetings, witness hearings, and the necessary logistics pertaining to case files involving the arbitrators, the parties, and the court. After the arbitrators hear the case, the case files, including the witness statements, exhibits, and reports during the arbitration proceedings, are collected and sent back to the respective court along with the award. Under the pilot project, the arbitrators will issue awards within 30 days of the last day of the trial or the date the

On March 25, 2024, Thailand’s Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) published an amendment to its Notification re: Public Digital Token Offering to strengthen governance for initial coin offerings (ICOs). The amendments took effect on April 16, 2024, and reflect the SEC’s commitment to creating a safer and more transparent ICO environment, enhancing investor protection, and building confidence in ICOs as a fundraising tool. The key changes are outlined below: New Checks and Balances Requirements The new regulations require digital token issuers to implement checks and balances to protect investor rights—including an annual audit requirement and measures to prevent and manage conflicts of interest. These measures must be clearly disclosed in the ICO filing documents. In addition, certain project-related decisions must be approved by the issuer’s board of directors, which is also responsible for the accountability of such decisions. Improved Rules Concerning Voting Rights The SEC has introduced rules concerning voting rights and procedures for digital token holders, particularly for token types that previously lacked regulatory clarity. These rules specify the procedures for soliciting votes, the rationale behind vote requests, and the criteria for determining voting outcomes. The new rules, however, do not apply to real estate-backed tokens or infrastructure-backed tokens. Enhanced Advertising Regulations The SEC has revised advertising guidelines to ensure that investors receive essential information. The updated rules now require all ICO advertising to be fair and informative and to avoid misleading content. Advertisements must include appropriate risk warnings and a credible source for any claims made. The notification also stresses that it is the responsibility of digital token issuers to strictly supervise and ensure that those who create advertisements with or for an issuer comply with all relevant advertising regulations, including the following: Warning of investment risk: Advertisements must include warnings about investment risks and contact information for further inquiries. Reference to third-party information: If an advertisement

On November 4, 2021, Cambodia’s Ministry of Mines and Energy (MME) issued a Prakas No. 0305 on Management of the Steam Energy Subsector within the Energy Sector. The prakas aims to regulate steam energy operations, and requires companies wishing to develop, build, install, or operate steam energy to apply for a steam energy license. As this is the first prakas regulating steam energy operations in Cambodia, all relevant companies operating in steam energy must apply for a steam energy license with the MME. Prakas 0305 discusses permits for three types of activities: Development, Construction, Installation, and Operation of Steam Energy. Companies wishing to develop, build, install, and operate steam energy production facilities must first apply for a permit from the MME. Steam Energy Service Provision. Companies wishing to develop, build, install, and operate steam energy for the purpose of supplying steam energy to consumers must apply for a permit for steam energy service provider in addition to a permit for development, construction, installation, and operation of steam energy. Two-in-One Steam Energy and Electricity Production. Companies wishing to develop and operate both steam energy and electricity production activities must also apply for a permit for two-in-one steam energy and electricity production. Companies operating without the necessary permits are subject to a daily fine of KHR 400,000–4,000,000 (approx. USD 100–1,000). In addition, they may face other penalties, including: An order to halt business activities; Permit suspension; Permit revocation; Judicial action; and Other legal measures as the MME deems fit. For more information on regulations and requirements for steam energy licenses in Cambodia, please contact Tilleke & Gibbins at [email protected].

Trademark disputes in Thailand have undergone a significant transformation with the recent implementation of streamlined procedures aimed at expediting legal proceedings. This article explores the traditional process for resolving noncomplex trademark cases and introduces the latest regulatory amendments designed to enhance efficiency within the Thai legal framework. Traditional Process Overview The trademark registration process in Thailand involves several steps, including filing, examination, and granting registration. If the trademark registrar rejects an application on substantive grounds, applicants can appeal to the Board of Trademarks. If the board upholds the registrar’s decision, applicants can then pursue a civil suit with the Central Intellectual Property and International Trade Court (IP&IT Court) to revoke the trademark registrar’s and the board’s orders. Previous Regulations and Practice Historically, civil cases concerning trademark registrations followed standard procedures outlined in Thailand’s Civil Procedure Code, with specific adaptations for intellectual property matters under the Act for the Establishment of and Procedure for Intellectual Property and International Trade Court B.E. 2539 (1996). Proceedings entailed various stages, including settlement of issues, evidence hearing, and judgment hearing, culminating in the opportunity for appeal. New Regulations and Practice In 2023, a pivotal development emerged with the issuance of Regulation for Intellectual Property and International Trade Cases B.E. 2566 (2023). This regulatory update introduced section 18, which deals with cases related to the revocation or appeal of Board of Trademarks decisions, such as those concerning trademark nondistinctiveness or opposition cases against Thailand’s Department of Intellectual Property. Section 18 grants the IP&IT Court the authority to order parties to submit documents and evidence without the need for witness examination, thereby streamlining proceedings. Below is a comparison of the trademark procedures for cases related to the revocation or appeal of Board of Trademarks decisions: Traditional Approach Streamlined Approach Implementation and Implications In practice, the implementation of section 18 has significantly expedited the resolution of trademark disputes.