Government Regulation No. 28 of 2024 (“GR No. 28”) was issued on July 26, 2024, to implement Law No. 17 of 2023 on Health (the “Omnibus Health Law”). GR No. 28 contains extensive provisions on tobacco products and electronic cigarettes in an effort to reduce the health risks associated with addictive substances, decrease the prevalence of smokers, and prevent the initiation of smoking among beginners in Indonesia. The Indonesian FDA (known as “BPOM”) is working to implement the relevant provisions in GR No. 28 and has subsequently issued a draft regulation on the control and distribution of tobacco products and electronic cigarettes. This draft regulation is set to replace current BPOM Regulation No. 41 of 2013, which only covered tobacco products. The new draft regulation, however, also incorporates rules on electronic cigarettes. This article outlines some of the measures on electronic cigarettes contained in GR No. 28 and the draft implementing regulation, focusing particularly on testing and reporting requirements, sale and pack size requirements, and labeling and advertising requirements. Testing and Reporting The draft regulation requires that each variant of electronic cigarettes produced or imported be tested for nicotine content. These tests must be conducted in an accredited laboratory, and the results must be reported to BPOM. The use of additive materials is prohibited unless they have been proven safe for public health. To enforce this, electronic cigarettes must be tested for the presence of prohibited additives before they are distributed. Additionally, a verification of the content of prohibited additives must be conducted during the distribution period, with the testing and verification being carried out in different laboratories. The results of both tests (i.e., the pre-distribution test and the subsequent verification) must be reported to BPOM. Sale and Pack Size GR No. 28 prohibits the sale of electronic cigarettes: Via self-service machines; To individuals under the age of

As in many other countries, registered trademarks in Indonesia that are not used for a given period of time can be canceled. A recent decision (Decision No. 144/PUU-XXI/2023) from the country’s Constitutional Court has extended the non-use cancellation period from three years to five years, applicable from July 30, 2024. This ruling could have a major impact on trademark holders in the country. Background of the Case Article 74 of Indonesia’s Trademark Law of 2016 specifies that trademarks can be canceled if they go unused in the trade of goods or services for three consecutive years from the date of registration or last use. This provision is aligned with the Paris Convention and the TRIPs Agreement. On October 27, 2023, an Indonesian individual named Ricky Thio asked the Constitutional Court to examine the constitutionality of Article 74, arguing that it opened a pathway for third parties to eliminate trademarks owned by small and medium-sized enterprises (SMEs), and did not provide certainty to his registered trademark in terms of the period of protection. Additionally, he argued that the period of three consecutive years was burdensome for SMEs, and asked the court to void Article 74 and add force majeure circumstances—such as Covid-19—as an exemption to non-use cancellation. Mr. Thio submitted this request while he was defending his trademark registration from a non-use cancellation request filed by Zhejiang Dahua Technology Co., Ltd. In his defense to that cancellation request, Mr. Thio explained that the non-use of the trademark was due to the Covid-19 pandemic. The cancellation case followed a different judicial pathway, and was under appeal before the Supreme Court at the time Mr. Thio filed his request for judicial review with the Constitutional Court. Mr. Thio’s case also attracted the submission of an amicus brief—a relatively new trend in Indonesia—from two IP consultants in the

In 2023, Vietnam’s Intellectual Property Rights Infringement Prevention Cooperation Program reported that 776 cases of IPR infringement were resolved nationwide. Of these, 546 were addressed through administrative measures, while criminal proceedings were initiated in just five cases. These statistics clearly show that administrative measures overwhelmingly dominate the response to counterfeit goods, with criminal actions being relatively rare. This raises an intriguing question: Why do IPR holders prefer administrative routes over criminal measures in Vietnam? And what challenges and obstacles make criminal enforcement less commonly pursued in these cases? Overlapping legal provisions Under Vietnam’s Penal Code, two key offenses address counterfeit goods: Manufacturing and trading in counterfeit goods under Article 192. Manufacturing and trading in industrial property rights-infringing goods under Article 226. Both provisions regulate counterfeit goods, yet they suffer from a lack of clear definitions and guidelines for application. Article 192 does not explicitly define “counterfeit goods”. Instead, authorities refer to Article 3.7 of Decree No. 98/2020/ND-CP, as amended, which outlines several categories of counterfeit goods, including: (i) utility counterfeits (goods not meeting normal expectations of usage or function), (ii) substandard goods, (iii) counterfeit goods based on misrepresentation, and (iv) counterfeit stamps, labels, and packaging. Meanwhile, Article 226 specifically deals with counterfeit goods that infringe trademark rights. These “trademark-counterfeit goods” are defined under Article 213.2 of the IP Law as goods or packaging bearing trademarks or signs that are identical or confusingly similar to protected trademarks for the same goods, used without the trademark owner’s permission. In this regard, “counterfeit goods” and “trademark-counterfeit goods” are treated as distinct, non-overlapping concepts, each corresponding to a separate offense. However, in practice, there is often a gray area where the two overlap. Many cases involve infringing goods that meet the criteria for both categories, allowing authorities to apply both regulations simultaneously. For instance, if a manufacturer produces cosmetic products using a

With the emergence of online marketplaces and e-commerce platforms, consumers have transformed their ways of engaging in transactions, gaining unprecedented convenience and access to a vast array of products. These platforms allow small businesses and individual entrepreneurs to reach a wider audience in an increasingly competitive market. Challenges in Tracing Online Infringers The growth of these online marketplaces and e-commerce platforms has also given rise to challenges, particularly in locating the actual identity of online infringers and combating intellectual property infringement activities. Online infringers often take advantage of anonymity to offer counterfeit products for sale on their platforms. Not only do these online infringing activities violate the rights of IP owners, but they also involve the sale of counterfeit products that are often manufactured with inferior quality and may pose significant risks to consumers’ health and safety. In today’s modern world, tracing the actual identity of online infringers proves challenging, as infringers adopt numerous methods to conceal their identity. The most frequently used method is using a fake name and address when dispatching parcels to consumers, making it difficult to verify the seller’s identity and the location of the sender on the parcel package. Some infringers exploit cash-on-delivery logistics services to prevent the disclosure of their identity, such as bank account numbers and bank account owner names, which would typically be required for direct payments. Instead, the shipping company collects the payment on their behalf, allowing the infringers to remain anonymous and making it more difficult to find their actual identity. Thailand’s New Regulations on Cash-on-Delivery Logistics Services Recently, the Committee on Contracts of Thailand’s Consumer Protection Board announced the Notification regarding Stipulation of Cash-on-Delivery Logistics Services as a Controlled-Receipt Business B.E. 2567 (2024) under the Consumer Protection Act B.E. 2522 (1979) in the Thai Royal Gazette dated July 3, 2024. This notification will

Thailand’s Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) has revised its regulations on digital asset operators and exchanges to impose stricter governance standards on digital asset business operators and to align digital asset exchange rules with international standards. The new regulations are laid out in SEC Notification No. GorThor. 23/2567 on the Criteria, Conditions, and Procedures for Operating a Digital Asset Business (No. 24) and SEC Notification No. GorLorThor. 24/2567 on Determination of Prohibited Qualifications for Directors and Executives of Digital Asset Business Operators (No. 5). These were published in the Government Gazette on August 16, 2024, with most of the provisions taking effect on the same date. Governance for Digital Asset Businesses The heightened standards for digital asset business operators aim to ensure efficient business supervision and appropriate response to operational risks. The new requirements mainly address: Board of directors composition. Large-sized digital asset business operators (i.e., those with at least 10,000 customers and holding customer assets of at least THB 500 million) who do not provide digital asset custodian services must have at least five directors, at least two of whom must be independent directors. In addition, the business operators must establish an audit committee, with at least two members being independent directors, to create an appropriate “check and balance” mechanism within the organizational structure. Current digital asset business operators must comply with the requirements within 180 days of the notification’s effective date. Qualifications of authorized directors and managers. Authorized directors and managers are now required to (1) either have at least one year of working experience in the digital asset field or have participated in a digital asset course from an SEC-approved list, and (2) participate in a good corporate governance course recognized by the SEC. Current authorized directors and managers who have not previously completed a good corporate governance training course

Aviation legal specialists from Tilleke & Gibbins’ offices in Vietnam have provided the Vietnam chapter for the Aviation Finance & Leasing 2024 guide from Chambers and Partners. The guide covers important legal issues faced by aircraft lessors, lessees, and financiers in 37 jurisdictions worldwide. In addition to the Vietnam chapter, Tilleke & Gibbins contributed the Thailand chapter to Aviation Finance & Leasing 2024. The Vietnam chapter provides in-depth details on the legal regime 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 other matters that affect the day-to-day operations of leading players in the aviation industry in Vietnam. Chambers and Partners’ Global Practice Guides provide in-house counsel with expert legal commentary focusing on practical legal issues affecting business, enabling readers to compare legislation and relevant procedures across a range of key jurisdictions. The Vietnam chapter of Aviation Finance & Leasing 2024 is available as a PDF through the button below, courtesy of Chambers and Partners. The full guide is accessible for free on the Chambers and Partners website.

Attorneys from the aviation team in Tilleke & Gibbins’ Bangkok office have contributed the Thailand chapter for Aviation Finance & Leasing 2024 from Chambers and Partners. The guide covers the key legal issues affecting aircraft lessors, lessees, and financiers in 37 jurisdictions worldwide. In addition to the Thailand chapter, Tilleke & Gibbins also provided the Vietnam chapter to Aviation Finance & Leasing 2024. The Thailand chapter provides in-depth details on the country’s legal regime 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 other matters that have implications for day-to-day operations 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, enabling readers to compare legislation and relevant procedures across a range of key jurisdictions. The Thailand chapter of Aviation Finance & Leasing 2024 is available as a PDF through the button below, courtesy of Chambers and Partners. The full guide is accessible for free on the Chambers and Partners website.

On August 13, 2024, Thailand’s Personal Data Protection Committee (PDPC) published a notification on the Criteria for Personal Data Deletion, Destruction, and De-identification in the Government Gazette, taking effect on November 11, 2024. Most of the content remains unchanged from the June 2024 draft of the legislation that was released for public comment. Only minor amendments have been made, as outlined below: Data controllers must respond to data subjects’ requests to delete, destroy, or de-identify personal data, including any copies or backups, without delay and within 90 days of receiving the request. This timeframe has been extended from the previous draft, which allowed only 60 days. In deleting, destroying, or de-identifying personal data, the data controller must ensure that no one is able to recover or reverse personal data to enable the direct or indirect identification of the data subject by any means that could reasonably be expected. If the data controller cannot fulfill the request within the 90-day period, it must take measures to ensure that the personal data is made difficult to collect, use, or disclose until the personal data can be deleted, destroyed, or de-identified according to the notification. In such cases, appropriate organizational, technical, and physical measures must be implemented to protect the data, meeting the criteria set forth by the notification. One newly added provision allows data controllers to delete, destroy, or de-identify a data subject’s personal data using a different method than the one requested by the data subject, provided they inform the data subject of the alternative method. However, this is not allowed when the data subject exercises this right on the grounds that the personal data has been unlawfully collected, used or processed, and there are no grounds to reject the request. In relation to the de-identification or anonymization of personal data, the notification uses