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.

On August 19, 2021, the Ho Chi Minh City Police Investigation Department shared that they are investigating a case of copyright and related rights infringement under the decision to prosecute a criminal case related to the website Phimmoi.net. This is the first time Vietnam’s police force has prosecuted a case of copyright infringement.