随着在线市场和电子商务平台的兴起，消费者的交易方式发生了显著变化，他们享有了前所未有的便利，并能够接触到大量的商品选择。这些平台为小型企业和个人创业者提供了在竞争日益激烈的市场中接触更广泛受众的机会。   追踪在线侵权者的挑战 这些在线市场和电子商务平台的迅速增长也带来了诸多挑战，尤其是在确定在线侵权者的真实身份以及打击知识产权侵权行为方面。在线侵权者通常利用平台上的匿名性销售假冒产品。这类侵权活动不仅侵犯了知识产权所有者的合法权益，还涉及销售劣质假冒商品，可能对消费者的健康和安全构成重大威胁。 在当今社会，追踪在线侵权者的真实身份极具挑战性，因为这些侵权者采用了多种方式来隐藏他们的身份。其中最常见的方法是使用假名和虚假地址将包裹发送给消费者，这使得验证卖方的身份以及包裹发件人的实际位置变得困难。一些侵权者还通过货到付款的物流服务来避免披露其身份信息，例如银行账户号码和账户持有人姓名，而这些通常是直接付款所需的关键信息。相反，物流公司代为收取货款，使得侵权者能够保持匿名，增加了识别其真实身份的难度。   泰国关于货到付款物流服务的新规定 近日，泰国消费者保护委员会合同委员会根据1979年《消费者保护法》B.E. 2522，在2024年7月3日的《泰国皇家公报》上发布了关于将货到付款物流服务规定为受控收据业务的通知B.E. 2567 (2024)。该通知将于2024年10月3日正式生效。 根据收据规范要求，物流业务运营商必须为货到付款交易向消费者开具收据。收据必须使用泰文，且文字应清晰可辨，字体大小不得小于2毫米，每英寸字符数不得超过11个。收据必须包含以下基本信息和条件： 发件人的详细信息，包括至少个人姓名或法人名称、地址、电话号码和电子邮件； 物流业务运营商的详细信息，包括至少个人姓名或法人名称、地址、电话号码和电子邮件； 货物交付的详细信息，例如跟踪号码、物流业务运营商的位置、交付人员的详细信息、开具收据的授权人的姓名、货物描述、货物价格、付款持有期和退款期； 声明，表明消费者有权拒绝接收交付的货物； 签名，包括开具收据的授权人和接收货物的消费者的签名。 该通知为应对货到付款交易中识别卖方身份的挑战提供了更为有效的解决方案。货到付款交易方式通常被用于掩盖卖方或资金接收人的真实身份，而该通知有助于揭露此类隐匿行为。 要求在货到付款交易中向消费者开具的收据上注明发件人的详细信息，是加强此类交易监管和控制的一项积极举措。此要求提高了交易的透明度和责任追究机制，增加了那些依赖货到付款物流服务进行匿名操作的网络侵权者的难度。   注意：本文为英文文章的中文翻译。原文请参见以下链接。  www.tilleke.com/insights/developments-in-ip-enforcement-tracing-the-identity-of-online-infringers-in-thailand/

One key component of Thailand’s support for the development of fintech innovations is its sandbox framework, supervised by the Bank of Thailand (BOT). This framework supports business operators in experimenting with new technologies under controlled conditions. This article explores the structure and significance of the BOT’s sandbox program in driving fintech innovation in Thailand. The BOT Sandbox Framework In June 2024, the BOT updated its sandbox framework to provide a more comprehensive and flexible environment for testing fintech innovations. The framework allows participants to experiment with their ideas in a controlled and limited environment, balancing the need for innovation with the imperative of maintaining financial stability and consumer protection. Three Types of Sandboxes The BOT’s framework encompasses three distinct types of sandboxes: the Regulatory Sandbox, the Own Sandbox, and the Enhanced Regulatory Sandbox. Regulatory Sandbox The Regulatory Sandbox is a mandatory testing ground for certain BOT-licensed financial services to ensure that potentially impactful innovations are tested and evaluated before wide-scale implementation. Participation in this sandbox is a prerequisite for: License applications for specific financial services. Implementation of new technologies or innovations in existing licensed services. Financial services that have the potential to become a structural element or standard of the Thai financial sector. A prime example of a service requiring participation in the Regulatory Sandbox is the Thai QR code payment via PromptPay system, which involved various banks several years ago until the Bank of Thailand granted permission for these services to be provided to the general public. Own Sandbox The Own Sandbox is an optional program that the BOT encourages for financial service providers and fintech operators implementing new technologies. This sandbox provides a more flexible environment for testing innovations that may not require the same level of regulatory scrutiny as those in the Regulatory Sandbox. Enhanced Regulatory Sandbox The Enhanced Regulatory Sandbox is a specialized testing environment for new financial products or

Thailand’s Central Intellectual Property and International Trade (IP&IT) Court has delivered a favorable ruling for Sumitomo Rubber Industries, Ltd., a major player in the tire manufacturing industry, regarding the registration of its motorcycle tire design patent. In this case, Tilleke & Gibbins represented Sumitomo in successfully advocating for recognition of the unique design elements in the company’s motorcycle tire products. Case Overview The case revolved around Sumitomo’s two design patent applications for motorcycle tire designs, which were initially rejected by the Department of Intellectual Property (DIP) on the grounds that they were similar to prior art. Based on an examination of the design elements, primarily focusing on the tire tread patterns, the DIP’s Patent Board had concluded that Sumitomo’s designs were not sufficiently unique to warrant patent protection, as the tread patterns of the new designs were deemed too similar to one found in prior art for tire products. In response, Tilleke & Gibbins filed a complaint with the IP&IT Court on behalf of Sumitomo, seeking a revocation of the Patent Board’s decision and requesting that the court compel the DIP, as the defendant, to proceed with the registration of Sumitomo’s design patents. The complaint emphasized that the designs were novel and distinct, warranting patent protection under Thai law. Legal Strategy The firm’s legal argument focused on the interpretation of Thai patent law, particularly regarding the protection of a product’s external appearance, and emphasized that the determination of a design’s novelty must consider the product’s overall appearance rather than isolating individual features. This approach is consistent with international guidelines on design patents, which require the evaluation of novelty and distinctiveness based on how an informed user would perceive the design as a whole. While Sumitomo’s tire tread patterns may share some superficial similarities to existing designs, the overall impression of the designs was unique. The

Following the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission’s approval of spot Bitcoin ETFs, Thailand’s Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) is reassessing regulations on the investments of mutual funds and private funds (collectively “Funds”). The SEC has launched a public consultation on new draft notifications introducing  the new asset classes that can be held by Funds, and aims to bring these rules into effect on January 1, 2025. The highlights of these changes are set out below. Eligible New Asset Classes The new asset classes that can be held by Funds can be categorized into two types—investment tokens and crypto assets—and the determination will focus on substance over form. Investment tokens: If the substance involves raising funds, regardless of what the assets are called, and they are legally issued and offered or approved by home regulators that are members of the International Organization of Securities Commissions (IOSCO), Funds can invest in these types of assets as transferable securities within the permitted ratio. Crypto assets: The eligible crypto assets which Funds are entitled to hold focus on crypto ETFs or offshore funds investing in crypto assets, and they are subject to investment limits. Funds can hold crypto assets directly, but only temporarily, and only for the purpose of purchasing, selling, or exchanging the crypto assets, not speculative purposes. The notifications state that Funds may hold Bitcoin/Ethereum for no longer than five business days and USDT/USDC for no more than one month. Investment Limits Typically, the rules segregate investment limits into listed and non-listed digital assets, and the limits depend on the sophistication of the investors in the Funds. In general, UI Funds (mutual funds offered to institutional investors or ultra-high net worth investors) can invest in these new asset classes without any limitations, although net exposure to other crypto assets  –  which are not crypto ETFs – is limited to

The annual statistics issued by the Intellectual Property Office of Vietnam (“IP Office”) in recent years show an increase in the number of IP transactions and applications to establish IP rights, including requests for the recordal of assignment of IP rights. Nevertheless, the numbers of trademark assignment recordals approved by the IP Office has not followed this trend, falling from 1,281 requests approved in 2022 to 1,120 requests approved in 2023. This decrease may be due to the IP Office’s overly strict viewpoint in approving trademark assignments, including its rejection of assignment recordal on the ground of conflict with the assignor’s trade name. IP Office’s practice on assignment recordal Vietnam’s IP Law restricts the assignment of trademarks in several cases, as set out in Article 139.4 that “the assignment of the rights to marks must not cause confusion as to properties or origins of goods or services bearing such marks.” Thus, when an assigned mark is identical to the dominant element of the assignor’s company name, the IP Office will view that the assignee’s use of the mark will result in confusion with the assignor’s trade name, and then instantly reject the assignment request. In this case, the IP Office will only accept the assignment if the IP holder can submit documents issued by relevant authorities proving at least one of the following conditions: The assignor has assigned all business premises and operations under its name to the assignee; The assignor has removed business lines relating to the goods/services bearing the trademarks and such removal is recorded in the Enterprise Registration Certificate; The assignor has been dissolved or does not exist after signing the agreement; The assignor has changed its name after signing the agreement so that it does not contain any element identical or similar to the assigned trademarks; or The assignor and the assignee

对于希望获得竞争优势的企业来说，保护家用电器等消费品的美学特征至关重要，尤其是在泰国、越南和印度尼西亚这些充满活力的市场。工业品外观设计注册（或泰国的外观设计专利） 为保护产品的独特性和装饰性设计提供了有效的手段，确保其独特的外观不被竞争对手模仿。本文概述了泰国、越南和印度尼西亚的外观设计制度，以及企业和权利人需要考虑的一些关键因素。 这三个国家都采用审查制度来评估外观设计保护申请。虽然这三个国家都是《巴黎公约》的成员，但只有越南完全的完成了成为《海牙协定》成员的过程。下表对这三个国家的设计系统进行了总体比较，并在随后的章节中提供了更多细节。   泰国 泰国的外观设计专利申请实行审查制度。外观设计专利的保护期为自申请日起 10 年。新颖性要求是外观设计专利申请的基本要素。泰国审查员会进行检索，确定外观设计的新颖性以及其他要求。如果审查员认为外观设计缺乏新颖性，则可能会出具审查报告和驳回决定，从而可能导致专利委员会的上诉程序。为避免这种复杂情况，申请人应通过保密和对外观设计进行现有技术检索来保护其外观设计的新颖性。 与印度尼西亚不同的是，泰国既不提供多次外观设计申请，也不提供部分外观设计申请。宽限期机制允许发明人在一定时间内公开披露其作品而不丧失新颖性，但仅限于由泰国政府赞助或授权并在泰国举办的展览。因此，宽限期不适用于发明人或申请人在任何其他渠道上的公布。因此，宽限期不能适用于发明人或申请人在任何其他渠道上的公开。虽然有关专利法的拟议修正案允许部分或相关设计申请并扩大宽限期机制，但这些仍在通过立法程序的过程中。 近年来，外观设计专利申请的形式审查要求越来越严格。审查员可能会发出审查意见书，要求修改图纸，使线条足够清晰明了，没有模糊或阴影部分。对于与电器有关的外观设计，也可能需要对外观设计的名称和权利要求书中标明的名称提出要求，以确保名称针对的是外观设计的基本特征。申请人可以通过使用在线数据库进行研究或咨询当地法律顾问，来减轻这些潜在问题。   越南 家用电器设计的所有者可以通过向越南知识产权局提交国家外观设计申请或直接向世界知识产权组织（WIPO）提交指定越南的国际外观设计申请或间接通过《海牙协定》缔约方的办事处来在越南申请外观设计权。 越南 2022 年的《知识产权法》将 “工业品外观设计”重新定义为产品或其部件组装成复杂产品的外观，形状、线条、颜色或其组合表示，并在利用产品或复杂产品的实用性过程中可见。 在越南获得外观设计权的两种选择详述如下。 越南国内设计申请 由于越南是《巴黎公约》的签署国，申请人有权享有自其他司法管辖区相应申请的提交日期起六个月的公约优先权期。根据越南《知识产权法》的规定，申请的工业品外观设计如果在前六个月内未经有权注册者的许可而公布，或由该人在科学报告中公布，或由该人在越南国家展览会或官方或正式认可的国际展览会上展出，则被视为未失去新颖性。 外观设计申请必须包括清晰、详细的外观设计图纸或照片，以及对外观设计的描述。外观设计的标题还必须标明工业品外观设计申请的物品。 有效的外观设计申请可以在越南公布，然后进行实质审查。获得外观设计证书后，其有效期为自申请之日起五年，可连续续展两个五年期。 指定越南的国际设计申请 《工业品外观设计国际注册海牙协定》（1999年7月2日日内瓦法案）于2019年12月30日在越南正式生效。海牙体系用户现在可以在国际外观设计申请中指定越南。 越南不在本国官方公报上公布国际外观设计注册。但是，国际外观设计申请可以在越南进行实质审查。如果知识产权局发现任何缺陷，将在国际公告之日起六个月内发出驳回通知。然后，申请人有三个月的时间提交对驳回的答复，并可单次延期三个月。 如果没有发现缺陷，或所有发现的缺陷都已得到纠正，知识产权局将签发声明，给予外观设计保护。保护期为自注册之日起 15 年。 越南的国际外观设计申请选项与泰国和印度尼西亚不同，这两个国家目前不是海牙体系的指定国。这些国家必须通过各自的国家途径提出申请。   印度尼西亚 在印度尼西亚，工业品外观设计申请的实质审查是新颖性审查。如果工业品外观设计在申请日与之前的任何公开内容不相同，即与印尼境内外其他申请的申请日或优先权日之前的任何披露内容不相同，则该工业品外观设计具有新颖性。 印度尼西亚确实提供多项外观设计申请，涵盖构成统一工业品外观设计或属于同一分类的一组工业品外观设计。同一工业品外观设计的不同实施例必须分别提出申请。 也可申请部分外观设计。未申请的设计部分应以虚线表示。 在工业品外观设计申请日之前有六个月的宽限期，在此期间，该外观设计仍被视为保持其新颖性。为了享受这一宽限期，工业品外观设计必须已在国内或国际上举办的官方展览中展示过，或者外观设计人已将该工业品外观设计用于教育、研究或开发目的的实验中。 工业品外观设计不收取年费，保护期为自申请之日起 10 年。在印度尼西亚，未注册的工业品外观设计不受保护。   为何要注册外观设计？ 在快速发展的家用电器创新领域，保护外观设计的独特性是一个重要的考虑因素。泰国、越南和印度尼西亚作为工业增长和技术进步的地区推动者，为制造商和设计者提供了通过注册保护其创意资产的重要机会。除了法律保护之外，注册工业品外观设计还能促进市场差异化，增强品牌形象和消费者忠诚度。通过投资保护其工业设计，公司可以确保竞争优势。家用电器行业的未来不仅取决于技术进步，还取决于保护定义它的美学的远见。通过投资于工业品外观设计的保护，企业可以确保竞争优势。家用电器行业的未来不仅取决于技术的进步，还取决于保护美学的远见卓识。

The Contract Committee of Thailand’s Office of the Consumer Protection Board (OCPB) has issued the Notification Prescribing the Business of Selling Condominium Units Through Reservations as a Contract-Controlled Business B.E. 2567 (2024). The notification was published in the Government Gazette on October 3, 2024, and is expected to come into effect 120 days after the publication date (i.e., January 31, 2025). This notification aims to prevent condominium project business operators/developers from exploiting consumers. Under the notification, the business of selling condominium units through reservations refers to a business in which a consumer enters into a reservation contract with a business operator to reserve a condominium unit in a condominium building, by paying a reservation fee (or other benefit similar to a reservation fee) that is not a security deposit or down payment, and committing the consumer to enter into a subsequent sales contract to buy the unit. This also extends to the sale of condominium units reserved through electronic channels. The reservation contract must be written in Thai and must include material terms and conditions as specified in the prescribed reservation contract form attached to the Notification (“Standard Reservation Contract”). In addition, the reservation contract must not contain any of the following terms and conditions: Exemption or limitation of the business operator’s liability arising from its breach of contract. The business operator’s right to change the contract or various conditions imposing an additional burden on the consumer, exceeding what was agreed upon at the time the contract was made. The business operator’s right to terminate the contract with the consumer without written notice, or without the material breach of contract by the consumer. The business operator’s right to confiscate all or part of the payment unless the consumer is in breach of the contract. The business operator’s right to treat reservation fees as a deposit or down

Thailand’s Anti-Money Laundering Office has released new guidelines on customer due diligence (CDD) for insurance companies to outline anti-money laundering and counter-terrorism financing measures based on the Anti-Money Laundering Act B.E. 2542 (1999). The previous guidelines were revoked and replaced by these guidelines. The guidelines include seven key measures: Anti-money laundering and counter-terrorism financing policy: Insurance companies must establish a policy in Thai that outlines the organization’s approach to assessing, managing, and mitigating risks related to money laundering, terrorism financing, and proliferation. Risk management framework: Insurance companies’ frameworks for risk management are to be divided into three stages: (1) internal risk management, (2) risk assessment before customer onboarding, and (3) ongoing customer risk management. CDD before engagement with customers: Insurance companies must implement a rigorous approval process to verify customers’ identities. Customer information review and transaction monitoring: Insurance companies must update customer information and the list of banned transactions to ensure compliance with current risk profiles. Enhanced CDD for high-risk clients: Insurance companies must apply a stricter level of verification and monitoring measures for high-risk clients, including reviews of financial transactions. Third-party reliance and subsidiary controls: Reliance on third parties is allowed only in processes for customer identification and verification of identity. Internal controls and policies for subsidiaries or affiliates must be updated regularly. Suspicious transaction reporting: Insurance companies must report any suspicious transactions, particularly whenever CDD is not available. For more details on the CDD guidelines, or on any aspect of insurance and anti-money laundering regulations in Thailand, please contact Athistha (Nop) Chitranukroh at [email protected], Witchupong Chittchang at [email protected], Ajaree Trachukul at [email protected], or Sireethorn Wijan at [email protected].