For the first time, Thailand’s Food and Drug Administration (FDA) has published a consolidated list identifying all substances that have successfully passed its novel food safety evaluation process. The list is a step forward in regulatory transparency, but it also highlights a feature of the Thai regime that food companies often overlook: each approval is tied exclusively to the company that applied for it. A substance’s appearance on the list does not give other companies the green light to use it. This article examines the structure of Thailand’s novel food approval framework, the implications of applicant exclusivity, and the strategic choices it requires of food companies looking to bring novel ingredients to the Thai market. Thai FDA Food Safety Evaluation Framework Notification No. 376 of the Ministry of Public Health requires novel food substances to undergo a food safety assessment, with an exemption only for novel foods manufactured exclusively for export. The framework also encompasses “foods that do not qualify as novel foods” but which present characteristics warranting a safety evaluation, such as differing quality standards, increased serving sizes, or applications in specific food categories, where such changes affect consumption levels, nutritional value, or consumer safety. The recently published list of foods that passed the safety evaluation by the Thai FDA is structured by substance category and identifies the approved company (domestic manufacturer or importer), country of origin, substance name and trade name, approved purpose of use, and date of the Thai FDA’s approval notification certificate. A notable feature of Thailand’s novel food regime is that the approval result is tied exclusively to the company that submitted the application. Publication of the consolidated list does not constitute a general authorization to use the approved substances. The Thai FDA’s approval certificate specifies the approved conditions of use and the requirements to support food product

Thailand’s Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) has released a detailed draft notification expanding its oversight to cover the funding sources behind major shareholdings in licensed securities and digital asset business operators. Published on June 8, 2026, as Public Hearing Document No. 30/2569, the draft builds on funding-source principles introduced in an April hearing and on recently amended Ministry of Finance notifications issued in February 2026 that broadened the definition of major shareholder of licensed securities and digital asset business operators. A public comment period on the draft closes on June 23, 2026. An earlier version of the SEC’s proposal brought the issue of funding behind significant shareholdings within the SEC’s regulatory perimeter, signaling intent to look beyond shareholding to the persons and capital ultimately financing major shareholdings in licensed securities and digital asset business operators. The concern is that control may be exercised through financing arrangements rather than through equity ownership alone. The draft notification advances that initiative into a more detailed regulatory framework, as summarized below. Expanded Definition Captures Funding Sources Throughout Ownership Chains The draft regulation introduces a “material funding source” concept. A material funding source is the principal capital that enables a major shareholder to acquire its shareholding, without which the shareholding could not be obtained. Under the proposed rules, any person who provides such funding, whether directly to the major shareholder or indirectly through any tier of the ownership chain above the operator, is deemed a controller subject to SEC approval. The draft also captures any person acting as a conduit or intermediary in facilitating financial assistance to a major shareholder, deeming each of these persons to be a material funding source and aggregating it into the same control group as the ultimate funding source. The definition covers not only cash loans and equity investments, but also financial assistance provided

Thailand’s new labeling requirements for medical devices, which include for the first time a unique device identification (UDI) requirement for software as a medical device (SaMD), take effect on June 20, 2026. The Notification of the Ministry of Public Health regarding Criteria, Methods, and Conditions on Labeling and Instructions for Use for Medical Devices 2025, which replaces a similar notification from 2020, was published in the Government Gazette on December 22, 2025. To ensure clarity, modernity, and patient safety, the regulation requires domestic manufacturers and importers to provide labels and instructions for use (IFU) that are clearly legible, complete, and free of false or misleading claims. It also permits IFU to be provided in electronic format, such as via QR codes, websites, or other digital channels—directly relevant to SaMD, where physical labels are impractical and electronic presentation is the natural medium. The notification distinguishes two categories for labeling language. Home-use medical devices (for lay users outside healthcare facilities) must have labels and IFU in Thai. Professional-use medical devices may display labels and documentation in either Thai or English. This distinction is significant for SaMD developers: software intended for clinical professionals may use English-language interfaces and IFU, while consumer-facing health applications must provide Thai-language content. Labeling and UDI Requirements Labels and IFU must include, at a minimum: Product name and intended purpose Quantity or volume Name and address of domestic manufacturer or importer Thai FDA approval number Lot, version, or serial number Manufacturing date and expiry date For SaMD, the version number requirement is particularly relevant. The regulation also mandates display of a UDI code for SaMD in risk category 2 (moderate-risk), category 3 (moderate- to high-risk), and category 4 (high-risk), according to Thailand’s medical device risk classification system (which complies with the ASEAN Medical Device Directive and the EU Medical Device Regulation). UDI details must be displayed as part of

The president of Thailand’s Supreme Court has issued new recommendations providing courts with criminal jurisdiction with a comprehensive framework for identifying and dismissing criminal cases brought in bad faith. Published in the Government Gazette on May 29, 2026, after being signed on May 25, the Recommendations of the President of the Supreme Court Concerning Bad-Faith Litigation in Criminal Cases B.E. 2569 were issued under Section 5 of the Act on the Organization of Courts of Justice. The recommendations took effect upon publication and represent a significant step in Thailand’s efforts to curb abusive criminal litigation, including strategic lawsuits against public participation (SLAPP). Background Section 161/1 of Thailand’s Criminal Procedure Code empowers courts to dismiss criminal cases filed dishonestly or with the intent to harass or take unfair advantage of a defendant. The new recommendations provide detailed guidance that courts previously lacked on identifying and handling such prosecutions. Definition of Bad-Faith Litigation Under recommendation 1, filing a criminal case in bad faith is defined broadly to encompass three categories: Harassment-type filings involving intimidation, threats, or creating unreasonable hardship for the defendant; Coercive filings designed to pressure the defendant into acting or refraining from acting for illegitimate benefit; and False or misleading filings that deliberately assert incorrect material facts or conceal such facts. Circumstances Indicating Bad Faith Recommendation 2 sets out specific circumstances that should raise a court’s suspicion that a filing may violate section 161/1. These include: Filing in a distant court far from the defendant’s domicile without benefiting the adjudication; Retaliation against the defendant’s advocacy for human rights, environmental protection, consumer rights, labor rights, or other public interests—effectively establishing an express anti-SLAPP framework; Retaliation against whistleblowers who disclosed corruption or unlawful conduct; Retaliation against individuals responsible for investigating the plaintiff’s wrongdoing or who concluded such an investigation; Filing multiple cases from the same facts without reasonable cause; and Penalizing a defendant who merely exercised

Since the implementation of the Trademark Law 2019 on April 1, 2023, Myanmar has operated under a modern first-to-file trademark system that brings its registration framework closer to international practice. As the new regime continues to develop in practice, applicants are increasingly required to navigate formal examination requirements, substantive objections, and procedural deadlines with greater precision. This article provides a high-level review of the trademark examination process in Myanmar, focusing on the principal stages from initial review to approval, the types of objections commonly raised by the Intellectual Property Department (IPD), and the key considerations for responding effectively. A clear understanding of these issues is essential for applicants seeking to secure registration efficiently and to mitigate avoidable delays or refusals. Examination Process: Key Stages Trademark applications filed with the IPD undergo two stages of review. Formality Examination The IPD first verifies compliance with procedural requirements, including: Correct Nice Classification Clear mark representation Accurate applicant details Clearly defined goods or services Representative details, if the application is filed by a representative Other formality requirements cover translation and transliteration of any non-English or non-Myanmar elements in the mark, color claim details, applicable disclaimers, and payment of official fees. Deficiencies result in an office action requiring correction within 30 days, which may be extended upon request. Registrability Examination The IPD also assesses registrability. A mark may be refused if it: Lacks distinctiveness Is descriptive or generic Misleads the public or violates public order/morality Contains prohibited state symbols Only compliant applications proceed to publication. Responding to Office Actions Applicants must respond within 30 days of notification from the IPD. Depending on the nature of the objection, strategies may include submitting legal arguments for distinctiveness, providing evidence of acquired distinctiveness, filing appropriate disclaimers, clarifying descriptions such as color claims, or amending the listed goods and services. If additional time is needed, applicants may file a time extension request before the deadline. Failure to respond or

The surge in AI development has led to a desperate demand for large, high-quality training data. However, real-world data can be expensive to collect, difficult to access, and often subject to strict privacy and regulatory constraints. Synthetic data, which consists of artificially generated records that replicate the statistical properties of real-world data without reproducing specific individuals’ information, provides an appealing solution by generating artificial datasets at scale without relying on identifiable personal information. It combines speed, cost efficiency, and regulatory compliance, making it a sensible alternative for organizations seeking to reduce risks while maintaining data utility. When properly anonymized, synthetic datasets may fall outside the scope of laws such as the EU’s General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR) or Thailand’s Personal Data Protection Act (PDPA), reducing compliance burdens while still supporting high-quality model training. However, relying on synthetic data without rigorous legal due diligence could be a strategic mistake. It replaces one set of known risks (scraping, direct privacy liability) with a new set of complex liabilities. The narrative that synthetic data is a “silver bullet” for privacy and IP compliance is dangerous and could be misleading. While synthetic data addresses data scarcity, it also introduces new legal uncertainties. Legal counsel should anticipate downstream risks arising from compromised data sources. Models trained on unlawfully obtained data may need to be decommissioned, even if their outputs appear lawful. What is synthetic data? Synthetic data refers to artificially generated information created using AI techniques such as deep learning and generative models. Instead of copying real records, it reproduces the statistical patterns and relationships found in the original dataset. Synthetic data generally falls into three categories: Fully synthetic data – Entirely new data points generated from learned patterns. The model studies the structure of the original data and produces records that resemble real-world behavior without replicating any specific individual. Partially synthetic

Thailand’s Electronic Transactions Development Agency (ETDA) has released a revised draft Electronic Transactions Act (ETA) for public hearing from May 12, 2026, to June 15, 2026. This is not merely an amendment to certain provisions of the current ETA, but a comprehensive redrafting of the entire act. The revised draft ETA introduces several significant changes from the current framework, with practical implications for businesses operating in Thailand. Unified Coverage of Public and Private Sectors The current law segregates government transactions into a separate chapter with distinct rules. The draft ETA eliminates this division, defining “transaction” to encompass civil and commercial juristic acts as well as administrative procedures, administrative contracts, and other acts of government agencies. Enhanced E-Signature Definition The definition of “electronic signature” is broadened to expressly include biometric data and refocused on identifying the signatory and demonstrating intent regarding the content of the electronic data. Shift in Burden of Proof When a party challenges the reliability of electronic data created using a “trusted electronic method” or a method prescribed by the ETDA, the burden of proof and the cost of proving unreliability shifts to the challenger. Introduction of New Digital Method Concepts The draft ETA introduces several new digital method concepts that are not currently recognized under the existing ETA framework. These include: Electronic timestamping (e-timestamp) Electronic registered delivery Electronic company seals Electronic stamp duty compliance Electronic identity authentication and verification Electronic transferable records (electronic bills of lading, promissory notes, and similar negotiable instruments) Recognition of Automated Systems and Electronic Contracting The draft ETA expressly recognizes the legal validity and enforceability of contracts formed through automated systems, including contracts concluded entirely between automated systems or between an automated system and a person. A party may not deny the binding effect of such contracts solely because no human review or intervention was involved in the transaction process. The draft, however, also introduces safeguards for unexpected automated

In March 2026, the Intellectual Property Office of Vietnam (IP Office) issued a decision refusing a trademark application after considering an opposition based primarily on copyright grounds. The outcome is noteworthy because the foreign brand owner had neither trademark registrations nor applications in Vietnam at the time the opposition was filed, and the IP Office has historically applied a stringent approach to oppositions relying on copyright. The Opposition Maurten is a well-known Swedish sports nutrition brand recognized globally for its innovative hydrogel technology, which is designed to help endurance athletes fuel more effectively without gastrointestinal discomfort. The brand’s distinctive logo is characterized by clean lines and a bold black-and-white color scheme, and has long been associated with the company’s performance products. The brand’s logo is displayed above. An identical mark was filed for registration by a Vietnamese trademark squatter. In 2023, a Vietnamese individual filed an application for registration of an identical mark (Application No. 4-2023-38668), a practice commonly observed in Vietnam as trademark squatting. The brand owner engaged Tilleke & Gibbins to assist with strategy and filing an opposition to the mark. At the time, Maurten had no trademark rights or meaningful use in Vietnam, and global marketing data showed only modest figures without any local presence. Thus, to convince the IP Office to refuse the squatter’s application, instead of relying on trademark rights or use evidence, the opposition strategy centered on the copyright protection of the logo itself, as copyright arises automatically in Vietnam upon creation of the work and does not require registration. (It is worth noting, however, that the IP Office has traditionally been cautious in accepting copyright as a basis for refusing trademark applications.) On September 24, 2024, an opposition was filed on three main grounds: confusing similarity, copyright infringement of the artistic work, and the applicant’s bad faith. The