According to official doctrine, land in Vietnam belongs to the people, while the use of such land is administered on the people’s behalf by the State. Thus, “land ownership” is more appropriately referred to as a “land use right” (LUR). The State administers the LUR by issuing a Land Use Right Certificate (LURC), similar to a title deed to real property in the West. LURCs designate, among other things, the duration and purpose of the land use. Any use of the land beyond the scope of the LUR can lead to a withdrawal of the LUR by the State.

In 2010, the Vietnamese government took a number of bold actions against intellectual property right (IPR) violations including a historic court ruling, a decree strengthening remedies for certain violations, and a decree establishing increased fines for acts of piracy.

Thai courts have yet to determine whether “trade dress,” or the look and feel of a product’s packaging or presentation, should be legally protected under the Thai Trademark Act of 1991. In fact, despite its importance for consumers, the subject rarely arises. This stands in contrast to the ongoing legal debate surrounding conventional trademark issues, such as trademark similarity or the registrability of three-dimensional trademarks, sounds, or smells. To understand the complexity of the trade dress issue, this article examines the concept from an intellectual property standpoint.

A recent movement in Thai society has led to the introduction of the Patient Injury Bill, which has become popularly known as the “Medical Malpractice Bill” (the Bill). The purpose of the Bill is to set up a compensation fund for patients suffering from healthcare injuries. Under the Bill, compensation should be timely paid to patients regardless of whether a fault was committed by the medical care provider, known as a “sanatorium.” By providing a remedy to injured patients, the Bill aims to decrease the number of court cases regarding medical malpractice.

Thailand’s intellectual property system offers a variety of robust forms of protection for IP owners. But this was not always the case. Just 15 years ago, IP owners in Thailand had many fewer options available to them in defending their rights. In order to understand Thailand’s IP system today, it is worthwhile to reflect on how these new forms of protection came into being. This article provides an overview.

In September 2010, consumers and consumer activists welcomed the passage of a new law aimed at controlling the behavior of creditors during the collections process. The new law, known as the Demand for Payment of Debt with Fairness Act (DPDF), represents a major effort to control the ongoing problem of harassment of debtors by protecting their rights. The main objective of the DPDF was to address the concerns of consumers and consumer advocacy groups over the increasingly aggressive tactics employed by creditors in the loan and credit card businesses.

This chapter provides an overview of restrictive covenants and trade secrets laws in Thailand, with a focus on both the drafting and enforcement of these covenants. The chapter reviews governing legislation, the types and permissible scope of restrictions, other legal requirements, and litigation issues.

A group of colors, the combination of two colors or more, form a kind of mark (group of colors mark) that can be registered under the Thai Trademark Act. Presently, there are few examples of group of colors marks registered in Thailand; few owners of such marks seek registration, and a number of applications have been rejected due to nondistinctiveness. Complicating matters is the lack of a standard by which a Registrar may consider the uniqueness of a group of colors mark.