Thailand has a robust legal framework for competition, with laws and regulations in place to prevent anticompetitive conduct and market concentration and to promote fair competition. However, as the business environment in the country continues to evolve, it is important for companies operating in Thailand to stay informed about the latest developments in competition laws and regulations. Generally, Thailand’s competition regime is based on the Trade Competition Act B.E. 2560 (2017) (the TCA) and its implementing regulations, except for certain industries which are governed by sector-specific competition regulations. The TCA is designed to promote free and fair competition by suppressing anticompetitive behaviors. In this article, we will examine what businesses can expect in the coming year, and what they need to be aware of in order to stay compliant. A Maturing Regulatory Structure The Trade Competition Commission of Thailand (TCCT) is the agency responsible for enforcing competition laws and regulations in Thailand. The TCCT has the authority to oversee the market structure, act to maintain competitiveness in various industries, investigate misconduct, and take action against companies that engage in anticompetitive practices, such as abuse of market dominance, cartels, and unfair trade practices. It also has discretionary power to consider applications for a merger of two or more businesses that may cause monopoly or market dominance. While the TCA and the TCCT had limited success in the decades after the original TCA’s enactment in 1999, a new TCA in 2017 made several significant changes to the previous version of the law. The 2017 TCA guarantees the independence of the TCCT from political and business interventions. It also introduces administrative penalties for less-serious offenses, including non-hardcore cartels, unfair trade practices, and neglect of merger filing duties. Since then, the TCCT has been more active in its issuance of subordinate regulations to optimize the functionality of TCA provisions.

Phuong Thi Minh Tran, an associate in Tilleke & Gibbins’ office Ho Chi Minh City, contributed the Vietnam chapter of Foreign Investment Review 2023, a recently published global guide to the legal and regulatory environment for foreign investment in 29 jurisdictions worldwide. Published and distributed by Getting the Deal Through (GTDT), the guide discusses law and policy on oversight of foreign investment, regulatory frameworks, procedural requirements, and other important stipulations for foreign investors. The Vietnam chapter covers the following topics: Law and Policy: Government policies and practices, main laws and their scope of application (including details on investment promotional measures), definitions, rules for state-owned enterprises and sovereign wealth funds, relevant authorities and oversight, and national interest provisions. Procedure: Jurisdictional thresholds, national interest clearance, securing approval, the review process for competition clearance and associated penalties, involvement of authorities, facilitation of clearance, and post-closing regulatory powers. Substantive assessment: Substantive tests for clearance, authorities’ consultation with other countries and other relevant parties, transactional prohibitions and objections, mitigating arrangements and challenges to a decision, and protection of confidential information. Recent cases, updates, and trends: Relevant recent case law, key recent and ongoing developments. A PDF of the Vietnam chapter can be accessed through the button below. Tilleke & Gibbins also contributed the Cambodia, Laos, and Myanmar chapters to Foreign Investment Review 2023. To browse all 29 jurisdictions covered by the guide, please visit the Getting the Deal Through website.

Nwe Oo, a senior associate in Tilleke & Gibbins’ office in Yangon, contributed an updated Myanmar chapter to the recently published Foreign Investment Review 2023, a global guide to the legal and regulatory environment for foreign investment in 29 jurisdictions worldwide. Published and distributed by Lexology Getting the Deal Through (GTDT), the guide discusses law and policy on oversight of foreign investment, regulatory frameworks, procedural requirements, and other important concerns for foreign investors. The Myanmar chapter covers the following topics: Law and Policy: Government policies and practices, main laws and their scope of application (including details on investment promotional measures), definitions, rules for state-owned enterprises and sovereign wealth funds, relevant authorities and oversight, and national interest provisions. Procedure: Jurisdictional thresholds, national interest clearance, securing approval, the review process for competition clearance and associated penalties, involvement of authorities, facilitation of clearance, and post-closing regulatory powers. Substantive assessment: Substantive tests for clearance, authorities’ consultation with other countries and other relevant parties, transactional prohibitions and objections, mitigating arrangements and challenges to a decision, and protection of confidential information. Recent cases, updates, and trends: Relevant recent case law, key recent and ongoing developments. A PDF of the Myanmar chapter can be downloaded through the button below. Tilleke & Gibbins also contributed the Cambodia, Laos, and Vietnam chapters to Foreign Investment Review 2023. To browse the full guide covering all 29 jurisdictions, please visit the Getting the Deal Through website.

Dino Santaniello, head of Tilleke & Gibbins’ office in Vientiane, provided an updated Laos chapter for Foreign Investment Review 2023, a global guide to the legal and regulatory environment for foreign investment in 29 jurisdictions worldwide. Published and distributed by Lexology Getting the Deal Through (GTDT), the guide discusses law and policy on oversight of foreign investment, regulatory frameworks, procedural requirements, and other important considerations for foreign investors. The Laos chapter aims to give investors an understanding of what to expect when establishing operations and operating in the Lao market, covering: Law and Policy: Government policies and practices, main laws and their scope of application (including details on investment promotional measures), definitions, rules for state-owned enterprises and sovereign wealth funds, relevant authorities and oversight, and national interest provisions. Procedure: Jurisdictional thresholds, national interest clearance, securing approval, the review process for competition clearance and associated penalties, involvement of authorities, facilitation of clearance, and post-closing regulatory powers. Substantive assessment: Substantive tests for clearance, authorities’ consultation with other countries and other relevant parties, transactional prohibitions and objections, mitigating arrangements and challenges to a decision, and protection of confidential information. Recent cases, updates, and trends: Relevant recent case law, key recent and ongoing developments. A PDF of the Laos chapter can be accessed through the button below. Tilleke & Gibbins also contributed the Cambodia, Myanmar, and Vietnam chapters to Foreign Investment Review 2023. To browse the full guide covering all 29 jurisdictions, please visit the Getting the Deal Through website.

Attorneys from Tilleke & Gibbins’ office in Phnom Penh have contributed an updated Cambodia chapter to Foreign Investment Review 2023, a global guide to the legal and regulatory environment for foreign investment in 29 jurisdictions around the world. Published and distributed by Lexology Getting the Deal Through (GTDT), the guide is focused on law and policy regarding foreign investment oversight, regulatory frameworks, procedural requirements, and other notable concerns for foreign investors. The Cambodia chapter was updated by Jay Cohen, partner and director of Tilleke & Gibbins’ Phnom Penh office, and Nitikar Nith, associate. The chapter focuses most closely on the law and policy section, which explains the government’s policies and practices regarding foreign direct investment, the main investment laws and their scope, and the relevant authorities responsible for regulating mergers, acquisitions, and other business transactions. The chapter also brings up key recent developments, such as the prospect of Cambodia establishing a competition regulator. A PDF of the Cambodia chapter can be downloaded through the button below. Tilleke & Gibbins also provided the Laos, Myanmar, and Vietnam chapters to Foreign Investment Review 2023. To browse the full guide for all 29 jurisdictions, please visit the Getting the Deal Through website.

Thailand’s Department of Business Development (DBD) has clarified that even after the amended Civil and Commercial Code (CCC) comes into effect on February 7, 2023, companies with articles of association pursuant to the previous CCC will still have to follow the previous requirements for publication of shareholders’ meeting notices. The amended CCC removes the requirement for companies to publish a notice in a local newspaper when calling a general meeting of shareholders. Instead, companies can call a general meeting of shareholders either by sending a notice by post with acknowledgement of receipt to every shareholder whose name appears in the register of shareholders or by delivering the notice in person. However, the amended CCC still requires companies that have issued share certificates to bearers to publish a notice at least once in a local newspaper or via electronic means, as prescribed by the relevant ministerial regulations. Notwithstanding these updated requirements, the DBD has issued a clarification explaining that the amended CCC coming into effect on February 7 will not usher in a blanket change to the way most companies are required to notify shareholders about a general shareholders’ meeting. If a company’s articles of association were made pursuant to a prior version of the CCC, that company will still need to publish a notice calling for a general meeting of shareholders in a local newspaper—even after the new amendment becomes effective. If companies would like to change their practice so that they no longer have to publish this notice, they will need to amend their articles of association after the effective date of the amended CCC. For more information on the new requirements of the amended CCC, or on any aspect of corporate laws and corporate governance in Thailand, please contact Prisna Sungwanna at [email protected], or Kobchai Nitungkorn at [email protected].

The available options for enforcing intellectual property (IP) in Cambodia have steadily increased over the past years, and both enforcement authorities and IP owners have gained valuable experience in enforcement operations. This experience, alongside new legal developments, has contributed to an increase in successful IP enforcement cases—most notably those involving the police or the courts in Cambodia. Targeted government policies have further fostered a more robust IP enforcement framework in Cambodia for both local and foreign IP owners alike. These owners collaborate with government actors in a bid to protect their IP in Cambodia and ensure that quality goods reach Cambodia’s consumers. Cambodia’s obligations under the Regional Comprehensive Economic Partnership (RCEP) related to IP and especially IP enforcement will lead to even more positive developments. Customs Enforcement Recently, many IP owners have shown particular interest in enforcement opportunities involving Customs in Cambodia, as these IP owners recognize Customs as a key authority in fighting the inflow and outflow of infringing goods. Customs (officially named the General Department of Customs and Excise) is responsible for monitoring the import and export of goods at border checkpoints, and levying duties and taxes on imports and exports. They facilitate trade, which is key for the private sector and government alike, and they collect taxes that can be used for the government and the public good. In this role, Customs is an important agency in fighting infringement, either by stopping imports so that the infringing goods do not reach consumers in Cambodia, or by taking action against exports, thereby making Cambodia less desirable as a manufacturing or transit hub for infringing goods. Besides improving the reputation of the country as a destination for investment and business, it can benefit the public as well, because infringing goods are often smuggled or misdeclared to avoid duties and taxes, resulting in a

Overview Although Vietnam has a number of mechanisms for accelerating the patent examination process, most of them have not lived up to the expectations of applicants. However, a fast-track patent prosecution highway (PPH) program was opened for the first time between the Intellectual Property Office of Vietnam (IP Office) and the Japan Patent Office (JPO) in January 2016, creating opportunities for all applications originating from Japan. The PPH program has been rolled out in the following stages: After more than six years of implementation, this program is considered successful and can be extended to support Japanese enterprises in establishing patent rights in Vietnam. Effectiveness This program has many advantages, such as: Applications originating from Japan are usually of good quality with clear and coherent specification It is possible that the IP Office’s requirements for specifications are already very consistent with Japanese applicants’ way of drafting specifications thanks to the JPO’s training programs for the IP Office. Patents in Japan usually have a short examination timeline and are granted very quickly, even within the application filing timeline in Vietnam (12 months from the priority date for applications filed under the Paris Convention and 31 months from the priority date for applications filed as PCT national phase applications). The coordination between the JPO and the IP Office has been very good. PPH applications are processed in a quick and efficient manner. Japanese applicants and their representatives also often coordinate well with the IP Office to rectify formality shortcomings and avoid prolongation of the examination period. Although there are no official statistics from the IP Office, according to independent statistics for applications whose PPH requests were filed by Tilleke & Gibbins’ associate firm (one of the most prolific filers under the PPH), the examination period for applications under the PPH has been significantly shortened, compared to the period for substantive examination as