As Thailand has paid more and closer attention to anticorruption issues, a number of measures have been introduced and implemented over the years, including the establishment of the Complaint Center for Foreign Investors (CCFI) in 2015. The CCFI was set up by the Office of Public Sector Anti-Corruption Commission (PACC) to promote transparency and integrity in the Thai public sector and enhance the confidence of foreign investors conducting business in Thailand. Though the CCFI has been in operation for many years, many foreign investors conducting business in Thailand have either remained unaware of it or have been reluctant to use it because of concerns that acting against Thai public officials could cause problems for their businesses or in their personal lives. However, recently the PACC has made a renewed push to promote the CCFI as a suitable channel for foreign investors to lodge complaints when they face unfair services or treatment, or face requests for benefits from Thai public officials. Lodging a Complaint with the CCFI The CCFI was established to administer the PACC’s responsibilities under Section 58/2 of the Executive Measures in Anti-Corruption Act B.E. 2551 (2008), which authorizes the PACC to notify the superior of any state agency appearing to have regulations or procedures that fail to comply with the Licensing Facilitation Act; are deemed by the PACC to cause a nuisance or damages to a public service clientele; or cause severe detriment to a government service. Practically, this means that when investors have a complaint that fits the scope described in the law, they can contact the CCFI, which will take action by getting the relevant agency or government authority to examine the issue. In cases concerning agency regulations and procedures, this will be the head of the relevant agency, but if the circumstances indicate malpractice in the public sector,

On April 3, 2022, the Central Bank of Myanmar (CBM) issued far-reaching requirements for nearly all individuals, companies, and other organizations in Myanmar to convert foreign-currency income received from abroad to kyat (MMK) within one working day of its receipt. These requirements are effective immediately for all transfers, and apply retroactively to foreign currency balances already in the country. CBM Notification No. 12/2022 and Directive No. 4/2022, issued in accordance with the Foreign Exchange Management Law, instruct Myanmar banks that hold an authorized dealer (AD) license on converting foreign currency. Together, the notification and the directive stipulate that all foreign-denominated income received by “internal residents” from abroad into a foreign currency account opened at an AD-licensed bank must be exchanged into MMK within one working day, unless subject to regulatory exclusions. “Internal residents” include locally registered companies, organizations, and offices; Myanmar branches of foreign companies; and individuals residing or established in Myanmar for at least 183 days (excluding foreign diplomatic staff and foreign civil servants). As noted above, the notification and the directive have retroactive effect on foreign-currency accounts holding funds that had already entered Myanmar. This means that for the purposes of these regulations, these foreign-currency amounts are treated as if they were transferred into Myanmar after the date of issuance (i.e., April 3, 2022), and are to be converted to MMK in accordance with the new rules. The conversions are to be made at the official exchange rates set by the CBM, which for US dollars is currently USD 1 to MMK 1,850. Additionally, foreign-currency transfers out of Myanmar must be performed through AD-licensed banks with the permission of the CBM’s Foreign Exchange Supervisory Committee. Noncompliance with the notification or directive is punishable under the Foreign Exchange Management Law with imprisonment for up to one year, a fine, or both. Exceptions

Since the onset of the COVID-19 pandemic and the ensuing safety measures, many Thai retailers have shifted their sales toward online platforms. Unsurprisingly, counterfeiters have followed suit. The online sale of counterfeit healthcare and other life sciences products (e.g., food, cosmetics, and medical devices) is an area of significant concern, as it is particularly prevalent, damaging, and complex in relation to Thailand’s laws. This article outlines this type of counterfeiting activity in Thailand and explains some important tools brand owners have for fighting it. Counterfeiting Operations Although illicit operations seek to avoid being identified by authorities and brand owners, investigations by law enforcement and Tilleke & Gibbins on behalf of clients have yielded some insights into how these illegitimate sellers typically operate. Often, consumers are first exposed to these counterfeit life sciences products by paid social media advertisements that link to social media accounts set up by sellers impersonating brand owners. This brand impersonation may include unauthorized use of a trademark or trade name as part of the account name, and unauthorized reproduction of official advertisement artwork or product descriptions, taken directly from the official social media account. From the fake social media account, consumers are usually directed to a merchant website that contains consumer reviews, which are entirely fabricated. While not every counterfeiting operation follows this exact blueprint, employing some variation of these methods lends counterfeiting platforms the ability to proliferate through multiple iterations, as well as believability in the eyes of consumers. How Brand Owners Can Take Action Life sciences brand owners often discover that their products have been targeted by counterfeiters when a counterfeit item injures or negatively impacts a consumer. Thinking that the product is genuine, the consumer may then complain to the brand owner, or worse, file a complaint with the authorities. Many times this has resulted in brand owners

Trade dress, which refers to the visual appearance of a product and packaging, as well as the product’s placement at its point-of-sale (store layout), was at the center of an infringement case that recently obtained the highest damages award ever given for a trademark case in Thailand. Trade dress is an important branding consideration because it can create a commercial impression and enable the public to recognize the original source of goods and services, distinct from other traders. Trade dress comes in many different forms, but only a few of them find solid protection in Thailand, and only through creative use of existing intellectual property protections. For instance, a unique packaging design in the form of an unfolded paper box could be eligible for trademark registration. A distinctive product configuration or external design of a container might be eligible for registration as a three-dimensional trademark, or even as a design patent if it features lines or colors giving a special appearance to a novel product that has an industrial application. In addition, a product’s configuration could be subject to copyright protection as a “sculpture work” if it shows a figure with tangible volume. However, in Thailand, trade dress does not yet receive explicit recognition under the country’s Trademark Law—unlike in some other jurisdictions whose trademark laws permit the registration of trade dress. The protection and enforcement of trade dress in the form of “store layout” in particular has been a constant challenge in Thailand, given the lack of explicit laws and precedence. Consequently, brand owners may have a hard time protecting their trade dress in relation to their creative and unique store layout designs, despite a great deal of effort and financial investment. But now this appears to be changing: In December 2021, Tilleke & Gibbins successfully secured a precedent judgment on

For years, an inadequate compensation mechanism has been a limitation in resolving IP infringement disputes in Vietnam through civil measures. This limitation was once again highlighted in an appellate trial at the Superior People’s Court of Ho Chi Minh City on February 21, 2022, in which the appellate court reviewed a judgment of the People’s Court of Ho Chi Minh City dated April 28, 2021. Outline of the Case The facts of the case are quite simple. A Ho Chi Minh City-based company that provides educational equipment was discovered by the Inspectorate of the Ministry of Culture, Sports and Tourism to be using, without authorization, a specialized computer program from a company based in the United States. The inspection agency issued a decision to administratively sanction the Vietnamese company. The sanction included a small fine of VND 30 million (approximately USD 1,315) and the forced removal of the infringing computer program, which the infringer readily complied with. Thus, the administrative aspect of the case was completed. The company behind the software then filed a civil case against the infringer at the People’s Court of Ho Chi Minh City. Among the plaintiff’s claims, the most important was the amount of compensation for damages: over USD 500,000, equivalent to the value of the full-module computer program that was found to be illegally installed and copied on the defendant’s computer. In fact, the plaintiff has sold software licenses for this full module version through resellers in Vietnam for the same amount. In addition to claiming compensation for damages, the plaintiff also demanded that the defendant make a public apology and pay an additional VND 300 million (USD 13,150) to cover the plaintiff’s legal fees. Court Judgments The first-instance court determined that the defendant had indeed infringed the IP rights of the plaintiff and required the defendant to make

As many countries have experienced firsthand, corruption and bribery can have severe and far-reaching effects throughout a country’s political and economic systems. They not only impact the financial status and administrative ability of the countries involved, but at the same time, can also create and perpetuate a negative image of those countries to current or potential trade or investment partners. Recognizing the importance of minimizing or eliminating the damaging effects of bribery and corruption, many countries have made—and continue to make—efforts to strengthen their anticorruption and antibribery capabilities. Thailand has enacted relevant laws and enforced anticorruption measures in both the public and private sectors. Under Thai law, a bribe can take the form of property or a benefit. “Property” can be tangible (such as money, a car, a house, etc.) or intangible (such as copyrights, patents, etc.), while a “benefit” can be a gift, a discount, entertainment, healthcare costs, a job promotion, and so on. This article discusses the key provisions related to criminal offenses committed by private parties under three anticorruption laws in Thailand: Organic Act on Anti-Corruption B.E. 2561 (2018) Public Procurement and Supplies Administration Act, B.E. 2560 (2017) Act on Offenses Relating to the Submission of Bids to State Agencies B.E. 2542 (1999) Organic Act on Anti-Corruption The key provision of the Organic Act on Anti-Corruption (OAAC) is Section 176, which prohibits giving, offering, or promising property or a benefit to a public official, foreign public official, or official of a public international organization with the intent to induce the official to wrongfully perform his or her duty. Violations are subject to criminal liability, punishable by imprisonment for up to five years, a fine of up to THB 100,000 (approx. USD 3,000), or both. If the offender is a person associated with a company that does not have appropriate internal control measures to prevent

Indonesia’s National Agency of Drug and Food Control (BPOM) has recently issued several new regulations governing advertisements for cosmetic products in the country. The main regulation—BPOM Regulation No. 32 of 2021 concerning Cosmetics Advertising—took effect on December 13, 2021, and revokes previous regulations regarding cosmetics advertising from 2016. The key aspects of the new regulation are outlined below. Cosmetic Claims The list of prohibited claims for cosmetic products is no longer included with the regulation. Instead, BPOM issued a stand-alone regulation on cosmetic claims as Regulation No. 3 of 2022, which was enacted on January 7, 2022. This regulation on cosmetic claims contains nonexhaustive lists of prohibited and allowed claims for cosmetic products. The new regulation states that published cosmetics advertisements must correspond to the information on the cosmetic product notification. This differs from the previous regulation, which only stated that published cosmetics advertisements were acceptable as long as they were in accordance with the Technical Guidelines for Cosmetics Advertising. Nonetheless, advertisements for cosmetics still do not have to be approved by BPOM prior to their publication. Publication Media Unlike the previous regulation, which only listed electronic, printed, or outdoor media for publishing advertisements for cosmetic products, the new regulation details six main types of advertising media: Printed media: Gazettes, magazines, tabloids, newspapers, bulletins, posters or flyers, leaflets, stickers, booklets, pamphlets, yellow pages, catalogs, and any other printed media  targeting a limited audience in a certain sector, industry, entity, or profession (i.e., non-mass media). Broadcast media: Television (including running-text classifieds, superimposed ads, and “built-in” ads displayed during a television program), radio, and cinema. Online media: Activities (such as searches of websites and webpages), e-commerce, games, social media (e.g., Instagram, Facebook, Twitter), applications, publications, transportation on demand, display ads, video ads, and entertainment, in various possible formats (such as video, audio, and banner). Outdoor media: Advertising boards, billboards, decorative

The copyright law currently in effect in Thailand is the Copyright Act B.E. 2537 (1994), which came into force in March 1995. After 20 years, a new amendment came into effect in August 2015, with a focus on updating the law for the digital age, followed by a further amendment that became effective in March 2019 to comply with the Marrakesh Treaty providing exemptions to copyright infringement for people with disabilities. Recently, to comply with the World Intellectual Property Organization Copyright Treaty (WCT) and update practices in combating online infringement, the Thai Copyright Act has been amended once again. This article will explore the backstory behind this amendment, highlight the law’s successes and potential areas of concern, and explain what copyright owners, practitioners, and—most importantly—internet service providers (ISPs) should be aware of in order to comply with this law, which was published in the Government Gazette on February 24, 2022, and will become effective on August 23, 2022. The Backstory Despite the modernizing focus of the 2015 amendment, in recent years Thailand recognized the necessity of strengthening copyright protection and modernizing the law further to cope with online infringement problems fueled by today’s rapid technological change. Previously, the Copyright Act B.E. 2537 (1994), as amended in 2015, provided a specific mechanism to solve online copyright infringement. This mechanism, which appeared in Section 32/3 of the law, differed from the clearly defined notice-and-takedown system favored in several other countries by relying on the courts to resolve copyright infringement matters in relation to the provision on ISP liability and safe harbors. As the law did not include adequate notification procedures or rapid dispute resolution mechanisms, the implementation of Section 32/3 became impractical. In addition, the definition of an ISP was broad, so “mere conduit” (or intermediary) ISPs would often receive court orders to remove infringing