世界中で、新型コロナウイルス感染症（COVID-19）は何百万人もの人々の健康を脅かし、日常生活を妨げ、事業活動を停滞させ続けています。タイでは、パンデミックが始まって以来、今回の感染の波が最も激しく、多くの企業が再び閉鎖を余儀なくされています。しかし、希望はあります。その主な理由は、予防接種の増加ペースの速さです。ワクチンは深刻な健康問題を防ぐだけでなく、商業、貿易、観光を再開できるように、ビジネスにおいて従業員と顧客の両方を安全に保つのに役立っています。 タイでは多くの人が既に予防接種を受けており、苦境に立たされている使用者は、在宅勤務から職場での勤務を再開したり、顧客をCOVID-19にさらすリスクを最小限に抑える環境において歓迎するなど、安全かつ完全に事業活動を再開することを期待しています。 このような完全な事業の再開を期待し、多くのタイの使用者は、ワクチンなどの措置を義務付けることで職場でのCOVID-19の安全性を高めている海外の企業や組織に注目し、同様の義務をタイで課すことができるかどうかを知りたいと思っています。 タイにおいて検討すべき主な法的概念は、使用者が従業員に「合法的で公正な」命令を出すことを認める労働保護法B.E.2541（1998）の規定です。命令が「合法的で公正」であるためには、状況に釣り合ったものでなければなりません。COVID-19のパンデミックの現状では、使用者は、自社のリスクを軽減するための命令が、均衡がとれていて合法的で正当であると主張する根拠として、伝染病法B.E.2558（2015）やその他の現地の規制をあげることができます。 しかしながら、タイの裁判所が、現在の状況において、使用者が従業員にワクチン接種を義務付けることを正当と判断するかは疑問です。上記の法的基準は他の行為にも適用できますが、使用者は、現在の職場の状態及び他の状況の全ての側面をケースバイケースで考慮し、その命令が状況に釣り合ったもので合法的かつ公正であるかどうかを決定すべきです。COVID-19にさらされること又は伝染のリスクを最小限に抑えるために使用者が課す職場での義務が認められるかどうかを明確にするためには、いくつかの質問をしてみることが有益です。例えば以下が挙げられます: 使用者の想定（正しく取り扱われなければ悪影響を及ぼす可能性が高い実際のリスクの想定）を裏付けるようなハイリスクの状況を判断する政府の規制又は発表はあるか。 社員が新型コロナウイルスに感染していると信じる合理的な根拠はあるか。 問題の従業員が職場でウイルスを感染させる可能性は高いか。 リスクを取り除くことができる解決策は他にあるか（例えば、従業員に在宅勤務や隔離勤務をさせるなど）。 これらすべての関連する質問を熟慮した後、使用者は、特定の従業員に対して職場の安全衛生を守るよう命令することができ、従業員が正当な理由なくこれらに違反した場合、使用者はそれらの従業員の職場への立ち入りを禁止することができます。 前述したように、伝染病法はパンデミックとの闘いを支援する重要な法律の一つです。ある地域で危険な病気や感染性の病気が流行していると疑う合理的な理由がある場合、当局は感染者や高リスク者、接触者、保菌者に、予防接種を含む診察や治療を受けるよう要求することができます。また、当局は、これらを実施する者に指示するため、文書による命令を発することができます。 したがって、使用者は、伝染病管理官から、従業員にワクチン接種を要求する手続きを進めるよう命令される可能性があります。仮にこれが起こった場合、そのような命令は、使用者が従業員にワクチン接種を義務付けることを「合法かつ正当」とする裏付けとなります。なぜなら、使用者はそのような命令を遵守しなかった場合は罰則を科せられ、よって伝染病管理官の命令に基づく義務を果たすために従業員に対して懲戒処分を行うことが正当化されるからです。使用者また、事業所の区域内に実際にいるすべての者に対して予防接種を行うことが命じられた場合には、使用者は、従業員に対しても同様に予防接種を行うよう義務を課すことができます。 このような命令がない場合に従業員にワクチン接種を義務付けることは、従業員が「合法的で公正」ではないとしてその命令に異議を唱えることができ、問題となる可能性があります。この根拠は憲法そのものにあります。憲法第28条と第47条は、「何人も、その生命と身体において権利と自由を享有する」、「何人も、国が提供する公衆衛生サービスを受ける権利を有する」、「何人も、法律の定めるところにより、国が無償で有害な伝染病を保護し、根絶する権利を有する」と規定しています。しかしながら、憲法は自分の意志に反して予防接種を受ける義務を課してはいません。そのため、従業員に対しその意志に反して予防接種を強制することは、雇用主を訴訟や法的責任のリスクにさらすことになります。 もっとも、COVID-19の拡大を防ぐために、（許されないと思われる）ワクチンの義務化やその他の職場での命令の実行可能性に焦点を当てることは、使用者にとって最善のアプローチでないでしょう。結局のところ、もし100%の予防接種が最適なシナリオなら、これを達成するための最も現実的な方法は、全従業員が自発的に予防接種を受けることに同意してもらうことです。したがって、従業員との良好な関係－従業員のワクチンへのアクセスを容易にし、ワクチン接種を重要視すること―が、従業員の間で高いワクチン接種率を得るための最良の方法であると思われます。 さらに、使用者は、マスク、社会的距離の確保、手洗い、適切な換気、その他の衛生上の予防措置など、COVID-19感染の脅威を最小限に抑えるために、職場での標準的なCOVID-19安全対策の遵守を要請することができます。使用者は、対面又は物理的接触を最小化又は置換するためにテクノロジーの使用を強制することも可能であり、また、事業所及び顧客の接触領域につき、混雑を防止又は制限するため、再配置を行うことも可能です。 上記に述べた背景は、この問題に関するタイ法の立場についての一般的な指針を使用者に提供するものですが、使用者は、それぞれの状況に応じて専門家の助言を求めることが望ましいです。使用者は、柔軟で、従業員の士気や健康を支援し、病気の発生を予防する政策及び実務の実施を通じて、事業を着実に正常な状態に戻すことができます。   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。Workplace Reopening: Mandates and Other Safety Measures under Thai Law

Background In Thailand, bad-faith domain name registrations can present a unique challenge to brand owners. According to the current domain registration policy, Thai domain names can be based on the registered name of a company or organization, or on a registered trademark, depending on the domain name category. When Thailand’s domain name registrar, the Thai Network Information Centre Foundation (THNIC), considers applications for new domain names, it examines only whether the applicant meets these criteria – and not whether the application has been led in bad faith, such as when a registered company uses someone else’s registered trademark without authorization. Domain name registration in Thailand is a first-to-file system, so if all criteria are met, THNIC must allow registration. There are no opposition or cancellation proceedings, making it impossible for an interested person, as well as THNIC itself, to invalidate a Thai-registered domain name. Disputes between two legitimate owners Disputes sometimes arise between trademark owners and Thai-registered companies, such as third-party companies, local distributors, or even authorized trademark licensees who exploit the policy gap identified above. For instance, in a recent case a brand owner found that its Thailand distributor had been able to register a company name containing its registered trademark, and subsequently register such name as a domain name, without the trademark owner’s consent. Fortunately, the two parties had a strong existing business relationship as supplier and distributor; through amicable negotiation, the local distributor agreed to withdraw the disputed domain name. However, if both parties had insisted on their legitimate rights over the disputed name, the case would have had to proceed to court, as THNIC does not get involved in such disputes and offers no dispute resolution mechanisms. Navigating the options Trademark owners facing such a dispute have two options: initiating proceedings with the Intellectual Property and International Trade Court (IP & IT Court)

Around the world, COVID-19 is continuing to threaten the health of millions, interrupt daily life, and throttle business activity. In Thailand, the latest wave of infections has been more intense than any since the beginning of the pandemic, and many businesses have been forced to close down once again. There are reasons for hope though—chief among them the increasing pace of vaccinations. Not only are the vaccines effective at preventing serious health issues, they are helping keep both employees and customers safe in business settings so that commerce, trade, and tourism can resume once again. Many in Thailand have already been vaccinated, and struggling employers are looking ahead to safely resuming full business activities, from reopening offices for employees who have been working from home, to welcoming customers and clients back to an environment that minimizes the risk of COVID-19 exposure. In anticipation of such a return to business at full capacity, many Thai employers are taking note of companies and organizations overseas boosting COVID-19 safety in workplaces by mandating vaccines and other measures, and asking whether such mandates could be imposed here in Thailand. The main legal concept to consider here is the provision in the Labor Protection Act B.E. 2541 (1998), which authorizes employers to issue “lawful and just” orders to employees. For an order to be “lawful and just,” it must be proportionate to the circumstance. In the current context of the COVID-19 pandemic, employers can refer to the Communicable Diseases Act B.E. 2558 (2015), as well as other local regulations, to provide grounds when asserting that their risk-mitigation orders are proportionate, lawful, and just. It is doubtful that a Thai court would rule that the circumstances we find ourselves in now would justify an employer requiring employees to be vaccinated, but this legal standard can be applied to other

Multilaw has published the latest edition of How to Hire and Fire, a guide to the rules and regulations governing employment relationships in over 90 jurisdictions around the world. Lawyers at Tilleke & Gibbins prepared the Cambodia, Myanmar, Thailand, and Vietnam chapters of the guide, which covers the following main topics: General principles: Forums for adjudicating employment disputes, main sources of employment law, employees working for foreign companies in Cambodia or abroad for domestic companies, and data privacy. Hiring the employee: Legal requirements for employment agreements, types of agreement, secrecy and confidentiality, ownership of inventions and other IP rights, pre-employment considerations, hiring of non-nationals, hiring specified categories of individuals, and outsourcing and sub-contracting. Maintaining the employment relationship: Changes to the contract, changes in business ownership, social security, accidents at work, discipline and grievances, harassment, discrimination, equal pay, compulsory training obligations, offsetting earnings, maternity and disability leave, insurance, absence for military or public service duties, trade unions, employee strikes, and employers’ liability for actions of employees. Firing the employee: Procedures for terminating employment agreements, instant dismissal, employee resignation, termination on notice, age-related termination, force majeure automatic termination, collective dismissals, termination by agreement, directors and senior officers, rules for companies facing financial difficulties, restriction of future activities, whistleblowers, garden leave, severance payments and tax considerations, allowances, and time limits for post-termination claims. General: Specific matters unique or important to each jurisdiction. Multilaw is a global network of carefully selected, independent law firms consisting of over 10,000 commercial lawyers in more than 100 countries, able to provide expert legal advice in complex environments around the globe. The full guide is available for free on the Multilaw website.

For Myanmar, the extension of the TRIPS transition period for least developed countries has broad implications, as implementation of four substantive IP laws (enacted in 2019) is still pending and the country thus still remains out of compliance with most TRIPS requirements.

Since July 13, 2021, the Thai government has issued a series of resolutions offering relief measures for persons insured under sections 33 (regular employees), 39 (former employees still paying contributions to the SSO) and 40 (freelancers) of the Social Security Act B.E. 2533 (1990) (the SSA) who have been affected by the COVID-19 prevention measures under the Emergency Decree on Public Administration in Emergency Situations B.E. 2548 (2005), including the business closures required in some provinces. The latest cabinet resolution extends relief measures to SSA-insured persons in 29 provinces designated as maximum control areas (or “dark red” provinces). The provinces are grouped into three categories based on when they received that designation (which, in turn, impacts the duration of the relief which they receive): Two types of relief measures have been announced—one for parties under section 33 of the SSA, and one for parties under sections 39 and 40.   Section 33 (Regular Employees) Monetary assistance is available for Thai nationals insured under section 33 of the SSA (and their employers) engaged in the following business activities: Administrative and support activities Arts, entertainment, and recreation Automotive repair Construction Food and accommodation Information and communication activities Professional activities in science and academia Services Transportation and storage Wholesale/retail Employers must submit an application to the Social Security Office (SSO) through the online portal (www.sso.go.th/eservices) in order for them and their employees to receive the assistance payments. Each qualifying employee receives THB 2,500 per month if they are registered with the SSO within the deadline, while registered employers receive THB 3,000 per qualifying employee, up to a maximum of 200 employees (i.e., THB 600,000), as summarized in the table below.   Section 39 (Former Employees Still Paying SSO Contributions) and Section 40 (Freelancers) THB 5,000 assistance payments are available for Thai employees insured under sections 39 and 40 of the SSA. Government officers and those who receive a government pension are not

The title of a video game is likely one of the most valuable assets that a game developer holds. Registering a game title as a trademark secures exclusive rights over that title and prevents third parties from using it for games or related goods or services of their own. However, whether a game title is descriptive of the computer game is an issue that has come up repeatedly in Thailand with applications to register video game titles as trademarks. According to current practice, the trademark registrar and the Board of Trademarks at Thailand’s Department of Intellectual Property (DIP) do consider a game title to be descriptive of a computer game, regardless of whether the title is related to the actual features or characteristics of the game. In a recent case, a mobile game developer decided to mount a challenge to one such rejection of a video game title trademark application. The developer, which has brought many popular mobile games to the global market, had submitted a trademark application for the title of their mobile game “Clash Royale” in classes of computer game software (Class 9) and electronic games (Class 28). This application was rejected by the registrar and the Board of Trademarks for non-distinctiveness. The registrar and the board decided that the words “Clash Royale” can be interpreted to mean “battle of the kings.” In connection with goods in the applied-for classes, these words describe the nature of the goods as “games related to battles of the kings” and therefore are not registrable because they do not exhibit the distinctiveness required by Thailand’s Trademark Act. The game developer enlisted Tilleke & Gibbins to appeal the board’s decision to the Intellectual Property and International Trade Court (IP&IT Court), arguing that the mark “Clash Royale” is inherently distinctive and not directly descriptive of the underlying

Ho Chi Minh City has been locked down for months in an effort to fight the challenging fourth wave of the Covid-19 pandemic. We explore the various options available to employers to cut labor costs, as well as government relief measures to support both workers and employers.