Thailand’s Department of Intellectual Property (DIP) has introduced ‘fast-track’ procedures to significantly expedite trademark renewals and new trademark examination processes. Fast-track renewals The first of these was launched on 1 March 2021, when the DIP instituted a fast-track option for the renewal of qualifying trademarks in Thailand. When a trademark renewal application is processed through the fast-track channel, examination of the application and grant of a certificate of renewal will be completed within just 45 minutes of filing. This expedited process incurs no additional official fee. To benefit from this, renewal applications must comply with a few specific requirements laid out in the DIP notification. First, the total number of goods or services on the application must not exceed 30 items, and no changes may have been made to the particulars of the registration. The application must also be filed at the DIP by either the owner or an appointed attorney. In the latter case, the power of attorney must authorise the attorney to collect the certificate on the owner’s behalf. Finally, fast-track examination must be requested when the renewal application is submitted. Tilleke & Gibbins has already submitted a test case with the DIP and can confirm that, when the above conditions are met, the DIP can complete and issue a certificate of renewal within 45 minutes of the renewal application being submitting. Fast-track examination After the successful implementation of the fast-track renewal process, the DIP then turned its attention to the trademark application examination process and the issuance of initial office actions, launching the “First Action Fast Track” programme on 16 April 2021. Under this programme, a first office action for qualifying trademarks in Thailand will be issued within six months of the filing of an application – again at no additional cost. To benefit from this expedited process, applicants must ensure that their

An exploration of what employers need to know about inventions created by employees in Thailand and Vietnam.

Due to the developing COVID-19 situation, the main Hanoi office of the Intellectual Property Office of Vietnam will stop receiving documents filed directly at the office and the IP Help Desk from May 27 until further notice, according to Notification No. 4670/TB-SHTT dated May 25, 2021. During this suspension, documents filed with the Hanoi office must be filed online or via postal filing. Since online filing is currently available only for certain services such as new filing, maintenance, and appeals, direct filing still accounts for most filing at the head office. Thus, most documents should be filed via post at this time. As it is not clear if the filing date will be recorded as the date the document is received or the date it is sent (postmarked), IP applicants using postal filing are advised to file their documents early, well before any deadlines, for safety. Rights holders can still choose to file their documents in person via the IP Office’s representative offices in Ho Chi Minh City and Da Nang, which are still operating fully.

While the timeline for the ongoing “soft opening” of Myanmar’s new Intellectual Property Department (IPD) lacks clarity, the IPD has maintained continuity in its operations. The soft-opening period, which began on October 1, 2020, was first announced by the Ministry of Commerce in Order No. 63/2020, dated August 28, 2020. The order did not mention the closing date of the soft-opening period, but many were counting on the soft-opening period finishing after six months. This assumption stemmed from the IPD’s workshops in 2020 about the upcoming implementation of the new Trademark Law, when officers indicated that the soft-opening period was expected to continue for at least six months, depending on the volume of applications received. Therefore, it was thought that the soft-opening period would conclude at the end of March 2021. However, this date has come and gone, and trademark owners are increasingly expressing their concerns about when—and whether—the soft opening period will end. No announcement appears forthcoming, either. The political volatility that has gripped Myanmar since the military seized power on February 1, 2021, has affected virtually all operations in the country, including government operations. As a result, no official announcements on the end date for the soft-opening period have been issued. However, the IPD has continued accepting applications for trademarks to be refiled, and has been issuing extensions to applicants who require additional assessment of their trademark portfolio and dossiers. Aims and Procedures of the Soft-Opening Period The soft-opening period is a key early stage in the public implementation of Myanmar’s Trademark Law 2019. It allows owners of marks that were registered with the Office of the Registration of Deeds (ORD) under the previous (and antiquated) system and/or actually used in Myanmar to refile their marks with the newly formed IPD under a fully modernized IP regime. In order to do

On May 24, 2021, Notification Re: Security Standards for Personal Data (No. 2) was issued by Thailand’s Ministry of Digital Economy and Society (MDES) to further extend the validity of the minimum security standards for personal data to May 31, 2022. The minimum standards remain otherwise unchanged from the measures detailed in Tilleke & Gibbins’ client alert on the MDES’ previous notification. The obligation for data controllers to implement security measures which meet or exceed the minimum required standards has been in place since July 18, 2020, and is intended to be an interim measure before the implementation of Thailand’s Personal Data Protection Act (PDPA). However, in light of the ongoing Covid-19 crisis, the recent Royal Decree Re: the Personal Data Protection Act (PDPA) (No. 2) extended the effective date of most provisions of Thailand’s PDPA to May 31, 2022, which would have created a one-year gap in the obligation. The minimum security standards have therefore been extended to cover the same period.

The new regulations for using Indonesia’s SIAPIK system have the potential to affect companies’ advertising plans and help maintain the relevance and effectiveness of Indonesia’s drug advertising regulatory environment

On March 1, 2021, the government of Vietnam promulgated Decree No. 14/2021/ND-CP on Penalties for Administrative Violations Involving Animal Husbandry (Decree 14). The new decree took effect on April 20 and, among other contents, repeals the regulations on animal feed found in Decree No. 64/2018/ND-CP dated May 7, 2018. In the field of animal feed, notable penalties of Decree 14 include the following: Penalty forms and levels For each administrative violation, the violator will be imposed a monetary penalty, which is the main penalty form. For the same violation, the monetary penalty level applied to an organization is double the amount applied to an individual. In addition, based on the nature and extent of the violation, additional penalties may be imposed on the violators, including confiscation of violating items, and confiscating Certificates of Eligibility to manufacture animal feeds. Violations of regulations on declaring product information A fine of up to VND 3 million (USD 130) will be imposed for the act of changing information on product labels that has been published on the Portal of the Ministry of Agriculture and Rural Development (MARD) without conducting the notification procedure to inform the MARD of such change. A fine of up to VND 7 million (USD 300) will be imposed for the act of deliberately falsifying or erasing contents of documents or making false declarations in the applications for animal feed products on the Portal of the MARD. Violation of regulations on quality in importing animal feed A fine of up to VND 25 million (USD 1,080) will be imposed for the act of importing each animal feed having (i) a quantitative content of each quality criterion lower than the minimum level or higher than the maximum level compared with the standards announced or written on the goods label; or (ii) each safety criterion/each harmful microbiological criterion exceeding the

When a U.S. cosmetics startup discovered that a trademark application for its brand name had been filed in Vietnam by a likely trademark squatter, they opted to use a “straw man” – another company with no visible connection to the startup – to directly negotiate with the squatter.