A comprehensive legal environment is necessary to deter and address the theft of intellectual property, especially vulnerable IP assets like trade secrets. Vietnam’s compliance with the CPTPP’s trade secret requirements is necessary to ensure a healthy business environment as the country continues its path of economic integration.

Sensitive to the difficulties many business entities and individuals are experiencing during the COVID-19 pandemic, the Thai Customs Department recently implemented an important measure providing importers and exporters with the opportunity to temporarily stay pending customs duty obligations. This measure, which addresses procedures and conditions for requests to stay outstanding duty payments during the COVID-19 pandemic, was included in Announcement of Customs Department No. 103/2564, dated July 1, 2021, issued under sections 37 and 38 of the Customs Act B.E. 2560 (2017). Background Under the Customs Act, importers and exporters have the right to petition the Customs Department for a stay of duty payments at various stages of the customs consideration process. For example, this right extends both to petitioners who are in the process of appealing a customs duty assessment, and to those who have filed claims in the Thai courts challenging a Customs Board of Appeals decision. On December 29, 2017, Main Announcement of the Customs Act on Principal, Methods and Conditions for Requesting a Stay of Outstanding Duty Payments No. 189/2560 was issued, stipulating that a party who appealed to the Customs Board of Appeals regarding customs duty assessment (or submitted a further complaint with the Thai courts challenging the board’s decision) can request a stay of payment of outstanding duties within thirty days from the date of filing an appeal regarding customs duty assessment. In mid-2020, the Customs Department responded to the pressures of the COVID-19 pandemic by issuing relief measures—first a short-term easing of certain documentation requirements, followed by a longer-lasting (until September 30, 2021) extension of the deadline for requesting review of import duty penalties, fines, and surcharges on outstanding import duty amounts. Relief for Payment of Customs Duty With the pandemic still being acutely felt in Thailand in 2021, the Customs Department turned their attention to relief for

On July 15, 2021, Thailand’s Electronic Transactions Development Agency (ETDA) announced a public hearing for their draft royal decree to regulate digital platforms (particularly e-commerce and e-service platforms) that provide services to people in Thailand. The draft royal decree is to be issued under the country’s Electronic Transactions Act B.E. 2544 (2001) and will be of particular concern to digital platform operators, which are defined as operators of intermediary digital platforms that provide a connection space for platform users to offer goods, services, or intangible property via a computer network, regardless of whether a contract is made on the digital platform. The key elements of the current draft royal decree are as follows: Extraterritorial scope. Operators of digital platforms located outside Thailand may be subject to the royal decree if the platform is intended to provide services to people in Thailand (evidenced by actions such as inclusion of Thai language, Thai currency, Thai domain names, and so on). Appointment of a local representative. A foreign digital platform operator that falls under the extraterritorial scope of the royal decree must appoint a local representative in Thailand, without limitation of liability. Notification requirements. Regulated digital platform operators must notify the ETDA of their operations via an online submission channel. The ETDA will also develop an online channel for consumers to check or verify the list of regulated digital platform operators. Further notification requirements and procedures are to be prescribed by the ETDA later. Platform-related requirements. The draft royal decree also sets various platform-related requirements, depending on the size of the digital platform operator (to be specified later). These requirements relate to the following: Terms and conditions; Content display; Content rating; Feedback mechanisms; Dispute settlement; Access and use of data; Control of advertisements; Notice and takedown measures; User verification processes; Suspension of user accounts; Remedial measures for damages incurred from the services; and Other conditions as prescribed by the

The Thai Civil Court has ruled that the controversial Regulation 29, which allowed the cessation of internet service to those disseminating content that “may instigate fear among the people,” violated the right to freedom of speech in the Thai Constitution.

With the latest wave of COVID-19 continuing to have a serious impact on Thailand, many businesses have been looking for ways to survive. Some have temporarily reduced employees’ wages, while others have resorted to a complete or partial halt to operations. In these unprecedented circumstances, it is vital that business owners understand the legal criteria and steps for implementing a temporary cessation of operations in Thailand, as outlined in this article. Any business can apply for a temporary cessation of operations under section 75 of the Labor Protection Act (LPA) if there is a necessity and a significant cause, such as the business being unable to operate as usual, and if the necessity is not considered force majeure under Thai law. (If it is deemed force majeure, an employer may be able to withhold all wages—more on this below.) If these criteria are met, the employer can choose whether to seek temporary cessation of operations on a whole or partial basis, depending on the actual situation and necessity. The employer then has to inform a labor inspection officer and the employees at least three business days in advance of the intended cessation of operations. Once this is done, operations may be halted, but the employer must pay employees at least 75 percent of their wages, calculated based on the rate on their latest working day, and these payments must continue throughout the entire cessation period. “Necessity” and force majeure Though the LPA does not indicate what qualifies as a “necessity” allowing an employer to call for a temporary cessation, past rulings from the Supreme Court provide some guidance on this issue. For instance, reduced purchase orders from customers and financial difficulties faced by the employer can amount to a situation of “necessity.” Additionally, the situation has to be significant and must seriously impact

Introduction Currently, under Vietnam’s Law on Intellectual Property of 2005, as amended in 2009 and 2019 (“IP Law”), secret prior art cannot be used in evaluating patent applications. However, an approach to evaluate secret prior art has been included, for the first time, in the draft amendment of the IP Law. Below is our discussion of this interesting topic. Recognition in Other Jurisdictions Secret prior art is the name given to prior art that, at the time of filing of a new patent application, was not discoverable by the new applicant or not publicly available. It exists as a filed but unpublished application, unavailable to the public until publication. Until that point, only the applicants and the patent examiners of the unpublished application know of its existence. Even though it is not discoverable or available to the public, secret prior art can still be used as a bar for novelty in many jurisdictions. Secret prior art is not limited to situations in which the first applicant and the new applicant are different people; secret prior art applies regardless. There is, however, a domestic limitation: Applications filed and not yet published in a foreign country are not considered to be secret prior art. When the applicants are different people, the new applicant has no way of discovering the secret prior art that exists as a filed and unpublished application of the first applicant. Regardless of the completeness of the patent search, the previously filed and unpublished application cannot be discovered. At the time of filing, the new applicant’s invention would seem novel. Later, it would be discovered that the application was actually filed after another application for the same invention, barring patentability. This creates confusion and unfairness among multiple applicants. One applicant can also file two separate applications at different times, in which the later

As Vietnam continues to fight the latest wave of the Covid-19 pandemic with strict social distancing measures, the Intellectual Property Office of Vietnam (IP Office) has issued Notice No. 7581/TB-SHTT dated August 2, 2021 (Notice 7581), extending certain deadlines for IP applicants. The contents of Notice 7581 are similar to those found in Notice 5277 issued in March 2020 during the first wave of the pandemic. Specifically, Notice 7581 reads as follows: All procedures related to procedures to establish industrial property rights (priority claims, supplementation of documents, responses to the IP Office’s decisions/notifications, renewal and extension of the validity of protection titles, payment of fees and charges, and filing of appeal petitions) falling due during the period from June 30, 2021, to the end of August 31, 2021, will automatically be extended to the end of September 30, 2021. For other cases, if an applicant is still affected by the Covid-19 epidemic with regard to the implementation of its rights and obligations in the procedures for establishing rights to industrial property objects at the IP Office, such applicant may request [the IP Office] to apply the clauses on objective obstacles and force majeure as set out in Points 9.4 and 9.5 of Circular No. 01/2007/TT-BKHCN, as amended and supplemented by Circular No. 16/2016/TT-BKHCN. Observations on the Content of Notice 7581 As with last year’s Notice 5277, it is worth noting that the wording of Notice 7581 covers only the procedures to “establish industrial property rights,” rather than all aspects of industrial property rights. Further, it could be understood that it provides a closed list of industrial property procedures that can enjoy this grace period, and that the deadline extensions would apply only to the specific items listed. Thus, it is uncertain if the deadline extension to September 30, 2021, will also be automatically

Lawyers from Tilleke & Gibbins’ Bangkok office have authored the Thailand chapter of the 2021 edition of Chambers & Partners Aviation Finance & Leasing Guide. John Frangos, partner and deputy director of Tilleke & Gibbins’ dispute resolution practice; Santhapat Periera, partner in the firm’s corporate and commercial department; and Nuanchun Somboonvinij, senior associate in the firm’s dispute resolution group, provided the Thailand update for the publication, which covers the most important legal developments affecting aircraft lessors, lessees, and financiers in 32 jurisdictions worldwide. The guide provides in-depth details on the legal regimes affecting all aspects of aircraft sale and purchase, aircraft and engine leasing, and aircraft debt finance, including sale and lease agreement terms; taxation; lease registration and enforcement; lease assignment/novation; insurance and reinsurance; debt structuring; securities; liens; and many others that affect the day-to-day operations of leading players in the aviation industry. Chambers and Partners’ Global Practice Guides provide in-house counsel with expert legal commentary focusing on practical legal issues affecting business, and enable readers to compare legislation and relevant procedures across a range of key jurisdictions. The full Chambers & Partners Aviation Finance & Leasing Guide—including the Thailand chapter—is available for free on the Chambers and Partners website, and the Thailand chapter be downloaded as a stand-alone PDF through the button below.