On December 23, 2020, the Prime Minister’s Office issued Notification No. 1414/PMO to continue implementing measures to prevent and control the spread of COVID-19 in Laos from the date of issuance to January 31, 2021. This comes amid a recent surge of COVID-19 cases in neighboring countries, and the transmission of the virus to individuals entering Laos. Specifically, the notification mandates the following: Continued suspension of chartered flights from foreign countries/zones where there is local transmission of COVID-19 among the community. Passengers of flights from countries where there is local transmission of the COVID-19 infection are also prohibited from transiting in Laos. Continued suspension of tourist visas for foreign nationals. Diplomats, employees of international organizations, experts, and investors urgently required to work in various projects must obtain the approval of the National Taskforce Committee for COVID-19 Prevention and Control (NTC); follow the prescribed sanitary measures; and have a COVID-19 PCR test certificate issued no more than 72 hours more before boarding the aircraft. When arriving in Lao PDR, these foreign nationals must undergo another PCR test and quarantine for 14 days in an approved location. Continued closure of all traditional and local border checkpoints (which differ from international checkpoints) to people and goods, except when exempted by the government.  Spraying to eradicate germs will be administered per state authorities’ recommendations. Continued closure of all international border checkpoints to the public, except for Lao and foreign individuals who need to enter and exit from Laos and have the NTC’s permission to do so. Goods can be transported into and out of Laos as usual. Prohibition of large entertainment events (e.g., concerts). Private and family events must implement preventive measures based on the NTC’s recommendations. Continued publication and dissemination of materials publicizing the preventive measures and urging the population in Laos to observe these measures. Monitoring of any persons crossing the border, and patrolling

The practice of business operators taking advantage of Lao consumers has always concerned Lao authorities, especially because the application of the country’s consumer protection regulatory framework has been restricted and unfamiliar to the country’s civil society. For example, the main piece of legislation, the Law on Consumer Protection no. 02/NA, dated June 30, 2010, enunciates a series of broad principles that are too general to be implemented effectively. Moreover, Laos has no independent entity to assist the country’s consumers in making informed decisions, namely by advising them on local operators’ malpractices and defective products that may endanger their health. Under Lao law, the powers delegated to the Ministry of Industry and Commerce (MOIC) and the Internal Trade Department are limited to administering consumer protection measures, such as controlling the price of products below the government’s price ceiling (e.g., for daily commodities, such as pork and traditional soups) and ensuring that products and services observe the country’s minimum safety standards. In practice, selected ministries have also overseen such measures for products under their respective areas of expertise; for example, the Ministry of Health monitors complaints related to medicinal products and pharmaceuticals. For this reason, the Lao authorities have been leading consultations to fill the legal vacuum and better promote consumer protection measures in the country. From these consultations to revamp and enhance the consumer protection legal framework, in mid-2020 the authorities issued recommendations that provide a legal framework for the establishment of consumer protection associations. This guidance was outlined in the Recommendations Concerning the Establishment and Operation of Consumer Protection Associations no. 0707/MOIC, dated July 30, 2020, which were published in the official gazette of the Ministry of Justice on August 3, 2020. Authority of Consumer Protection Associations The recommendations were issued to elaborate on the scope of consumer protection associations in the Law

On December 15, 2020, Thailand’s Revenue Department (RD) announced a further extension for e-tax filing and payment until January 31, 2024. The RD’s announcement is meant to support the government’s Thailand 4.0 policy by encouraging use of the online system for filing and paying taxes. The RD has been promoting the use of e-tax filing and payment since 2012 by granting eight-day extensions to anyone who submits online, rather than using traditional paper filing. Initially, this eight-day extension program was due to expire on January 31, 2021, but the RD has now further extended it for another three years, until January 31, 2024. Tax Filing and Payment Schedule for Eligible Tax Returns * Notification of the Ministry of Finance Re: Extension of Period for Tax Return Filing and Tax Payment via Internet System (No.3) dated December 15, 2020. It should be noted that tax returns and supplemental tax returns must be submitted via the e-filing system to qualify for the eight-day extension. If a taxpayer has submitted their tax return in paper form, they will not be entitled to the extension even if they resubmit via e-filing system. The reverse is also true—a tax payer who submits via the e-filing system, and resubmits in paper form, will not be eligible for the eight-day extension. For personal income tax payments set up as three instalments, the first instalment can be paid together with the e-filing and that tax payment is also entitled to eight-day extension.  The second instalment can be paid within one month after the extended due date of the first instalment, and the third instalment can be paid within one month after the due date for the second instalment. For more information about these tax filing extensions, or any aspect of tax law in Thailand, please contact Varapa Aurat at [email protected].

John McCarthy, an American computer scientist and inventor, coined the term “artificial intelligence” (AI) in 1956, and is often called the father of artificial intelligence. Now, nearly a half century later, legal professionals recognize that AI is not just a buzzword for novel computer software but, with the ability of computers to perform tasks normally requiring human intelligence, it holds great potential for technology growth. The term AI followed from research that studied and developed concepts around “thinking machines.” Today, AI is generally accepted as a branch of computer science. It concerns the ability of computers to perform tasks normally requiring human intelligence. Subsets of AI include machine learning, deep learning, natural language processing, computer vision, and neural networking. Existing Use of AI in Legal Research So far, the legal profession’s utilization of AI pales in comparison to other sectors, according to a 2019 management consultancy study by Bain & Company. It found that only about 20 to 25 percent of legal departments embrace AI in at least one area of their work, while 40 percent of finance departments and 54 percent of human resources departments do so. A survey in 2017 (on research not associated with AI) by the American Bar Association found that attorneys spend, on average, 16.3 percent of their working hours conducting legal research. Despite the transition of legal research within the last century from using traditional hardcopy materials to computerized databases, to the adoption of online research within the past few decades, little has changed in the time investment, the survey said. With clients pressuring lawyers to reduce costs, leveraging AI to conduct legal research can save time and money. A 2018 article in the Harvard Journal of Law & Technology  exemplified this point in referencing a bankruptcy lawyer who spent 10 hours searching for a key case, whereas an AI

As we continue to await the Thai Food and Drug Administration (TFDA)’s promulgation of its medical cannabis application guidelines, the Thai Ministry of Public Health (TMoPH) has helpfully issued several notifications to further clarify the 2019 amendment to the Narcotics Act that initially paved the way for cannabis liberalization in the kingdom. Cannabis (both marijuana and hemp) has been classified as a Category 5 Narcotic since the enactment of the Narcotics Act in 1979. All activities related to the plants and their derivatives had been strictly restricted until the recent rise of the cannabis legalization movement, which began in Thailand with an amendment to the Narcotics Act in February 2019 to legalize medical marijuana. The Thai government has since been working to reclassify cannabis products and lay out the regulatory pathways to accommodate these new “economic plants.” A notification in August 2019 further carved modern drugs, cosmeceuticals, nutraceuticals, cosmetics, and food containing hemp or a certain amount of CBD out of the scope of Narcotics Act. The most recent TMoPH Notification was published in the Government Gazette on December 14, 2020, and has expanded the delisting of cannabis from the Narcotics Act to include nearly all parts of the cannabis plant, as set out below. Type of Plant Detailed Components Marijuana (plants in the cannabis family) Stalks, stems, fibers, branches, roots, leaves without the tip and inflorescence, extracts comprising CBD with less than 0.2% THC by weight. Hemp Stalks, stems, fibers, branches, roots, seeds, seed oils, seed extracts, leaves without the tip and inflorescence, extracts comprising CBD with less than 0.2% THC by weight, and residues from extraction with less than 0.2% THC by weight. The Narcotics Act and its notifications must be reviewed carefully by anyone seeking to take part in his industry, and items that are conspicuous by their absence must be well

On August 28, 2020, the Ministry of Commerce (MOC) announced that the “soft-opening period” to refile trademarks under the country’s new Trademark Act would begin on October 1, 2020. This period, which is open to holders of trademarks recorded under Myanmar’s old system and to trademark owners who can prove prior use of their trademarks in the country, is expected to run for six months, though no closing date was stipulated in the MOC announcement. The date of the eventual “grand opening” of the Intellectual Property Department (IPD) will be the filing date for all applications submitted during the soft-opening period. What are the changes? Filing procedure – Under the old system, brand owners (or their agents) had to manually file an original notarized declaration of ownership and legalized power of attorney with the Office of Registration of Deeds (ORD) under the Ministry of Agriculture, Livestock and Irrigation, which would then proceed with recordation. Under the new system, online filing is now in place, the original hard copies are not required, and the authority is the IPD of the Ministry of Commerce. Priority rights – With the implementation of the Trademark Law 2019, Myanmar is changing from its former first-to-use system to a first-to-file one. In addition to the IPD, all concerned authorities, such as the police and the courts, will need to adjust to the new paradigm for defining the rights of trademark owners. Examination procedure – Under the old system as defined under the Registration Act, there was no actual examination of the registrability of a mark; rather, registration could be refused if the officer felt that the mark was likely to be morally or legally objectionable, or likely to hurt the religious sensibilities of any Myanmar citizens. This is changed under the new system, and all trademarks registered under the

October 31, 2020, marked the closing of the public comment period for Thailand’s proposed amendments to the Patent Act B.E. 2522 (1979). The Department of Intellectual Property (DIP) had published its latest draft of the amendments on September 30 for the month-long period of public feedback. The process of drafting amendments has been pending for several years, but it began to take a higher profile in February 2018 with the convening of public hearings on the proposed new legislation. After a series of committee meetings through November of that year, the cabinet approved a set of proposed amendments in January 2019. After further internal discussions, attention turned to the drafting of a companion law specifically for industrial designs, in preparation for Thailand’s accession to the Hague Agreement Concerning the International Registration of Industrial Designs. A similar process of public hearings and committee meetings was followed, but in March 2020, the cabinet requested that industrial design legislation be combined with the Patent Act amendments into a single new Patent Act. Therefore, the draft Patent Act as it currently stands covers both patents and designs. Some of the major patent matters proposed for amendment are as follows: Genetic resources (GRs), genetic material, derivative works and traditional knowledge (TK). Inventions that use GRs or TK must disclose the source, access, and benefit-sharing plan in the patent application. Disclosure grace period. Disclosure of subject matter of an invention within the twelve months before the filing of a patent application is not deemed defeating if the disclosure stems from the subject matter being obtained unlawfully or is made by the inventor, the patent applicant, or others they have authorized to do so. Dual publication. Patent applications will be published twice—first within 18 months from the application’s filing date in Thailand, and again when the substantive examination is completed. The second

A decade ago, intellectual property lawsuits were rarely handled by Vietnamese courts. They have become more common in recent years, but almost always with overseas IP owners in the plaintiff role, charging local Vietnamese entities with infringement, piracy, or counterfeiting. However, in the course of its rapid economic and technical development, Vietnam has emerged as a legitimate brand creator and content generator, and it appears that the tables may have turned. A good example of this shift is a high-profile copyright infringement lawsuit filed in mid-September at the People’s Court of Ho Chi Minh City by TV production company Vie Channel against the online streaming music giant Spotify. Vie Channel specializes in the design and development of game shows such as “Rap Viet” and “Who Is Single Vietnam,” popular programs on Vietnamese TV. The company has charged Spotify with extracting audio files from these shows—19 recordings from each—to broadcast on Spotify’s free and paid platforms without Vie Channel’s permission. Vie Channel sent several letters of notification to Spotify’s headquarters in Sweden before initiating the proceedings, and also clearly confirmed that there is no business relationship between Vie Channel and Spotify; therefore, these acts are deemed to infringe the protected moral rights and economic rights attached to the two programs. In its lawsuit, Vie Channel is requesting that Spotify terminate all acts of infringement and make a public apology, and is also seeking compensation for damages provisionally calculated at nearly VND 10 billion (USD 433,000), a massive amount in the context of Vietnam. The case presents many interesting legal issues to be settled by the court, such as the determination of the Vietnamese courts’ jurisdiction in lawsuits with foreign elements. Particularly, although the defendant in this case is “present” in Vietnam through its online music platforms, it has never been “present” in Vietnam in