Artificial intelligence (AI) model training and data scraping are essential processes in the development of modern AI systems. AI model training involves using large datasets to teach machine learning algorithms to recognize patterns, make predictions, or generate new content. Data scraping refers to the automated extraction of information from websites or digital sources, often to assemble the vast datasets required for effective AI training. As these practices become more widespread, questions about the legality of using third-party content—especially copyrighted works—have become increasingly important. In Thailand, the legal landscape for AI developers is shaped primarily by the Copyright Act, which presents unique challenges due to the absence of a fair-use exception. This article examines the copyright-related risks and legal uncertainties facing AI developers under Thailand’s current copyright law and practices, offering strategic guidance for navigating this complex environment. Copyright Risks in AI Scraping and Training Thailand’s Copyright Act does not provide a broad fair use or fair dealing exception, unlike some other jurisdictions, such as the United States. This absence has significant consequences for AI developers: No general defense for AI training: Any use of copyrighted material for AI model training is presumed to be infringing unless a specific, narrow statutory exception applies or explicit permission is obtained from the rights holder. There is no general legal basis for using copyrighted works in AI training without authorization. Increased rights clearance burden: Developers must identify and secure licenses for every copyrighted work included in their training datasets. Given the scale and diversity of data required for effective AI models, this process can be both impractical and costly. Legal ambiguity and litigation risk: The lack of clear statutory guidance or case law leaves developers in a legal gray area. There is no established precedent clarifying whether certain uses of copyrighted material for AI training might be tolerated or

現代のビジネス戦略が持続可能性が重視されるようになり、ESG原則の影響は商品デザイン、パッケージ、そしてブランド保護に新たな形を与えている。タイにおけるラベルレスボトルから立体商標の法的重要性まで、これらの動向は環境責任と知的財産の結びつきの深まりを浮き彫りにしている。 ESGの台頭 ESG原則は、世界中でビジネス戦略を策定する上で不可欠な要素となっている。企業はESGデータを開示することをますます要求され、これは投資家の意思決定、融資、そして消費者行動に影響を与えている。調査によると、消費者は持続可能なパッケージに対してより多くのお金を払う意思があり、ESGへの取り組みに力を入れている企業は高い成長率を達成する傾向がある。 プロダクト・ミニマイゼーションのトレンド 大きな変革を経験している分野の一つが消費財業界で、世界中のブランドがESG原則に沿ったパッケージを採用している。注目すべき取り組みの一つはパッケージの小型化で、pepsiが2022年に中国で初めてラベルレスPETボトルを導入したことがその好例である。同様にタイでは、SPRINCLEの飲料水「Redesign to Reduce」および同様のイニシアチブをはじめ、複数のボトル・ウォーターのブランドがラベルレス・デザインを採用している。 こうした変化はブランドイメージの向上だけでなく、消費者やビジネスパートナーからも温かく歓迎されている。例えば、キャセイパシフィック航空は、機内リサイクル活動の強化に向けた継続的な取り組みの一環として、一部のフライトと客室でラベルフリーのボトル・ウォーターを導入した。 立体商標でデザインから識別性へ パッケージはブランド・アイデンティティの重要な要素へと進化し、機能性と識別性を融合させることで消費者の認知度とロイヤルティを高める。この変化は知的財産に大きな影響を及ぼしている。これらのデザインは、その高い商業的価値を考えると、もはやオプション的なものではなく、不可欠な要素である。意匠権や立体商標などを介して法的保護を確保することは、戦略的に不可欠な要素となっている。持続可能性とイノベーションが重視される時代において、識別可能なパッケージを保護することは、単なる予防措置ではなく、競争優位性を維持し、ブランドの永続的な成功を確保するための基本的なステップである。 タイでは、商標法により、幅、高さ、奥行きを含む物体の立体的な形状を表す立体商標を登録することができる。立体商標が登録されるためには、識別性、つまりある事業者の商品またはサービスを他の事業者の商品またはサービスと区別できる特徴を示すことが必要がある。ただし、その形状は、単に商品の本質的な形状を反映したもの、または技術的機能を実現するために不可欠なデザインであってはならない。 その構成に固有の識別力が欠けているとしても、継続的かつ広範囲な使用を通じて消費者の幅広い認知を得ている場合は、登録が認められる可能性がある。このような場合、企業は、そのデザインが商品の出所を強く識別する役割を果たしていることを証明する必要がある。このプロセスでは通常、マーケティング資料、広告記録、流通データなど、消費者の認知を効果的に裏付ける包括的な証拠を収集する必要がある。注目すべき例として、イタリアの高級ブランドであるBulgariは、独自の円形状物が勘合する香水瓶のデザインをタイで立体商標として登録することに成功した。 重要なポイント 企業がパッケージ戦略やブランディング戦略に持続可能性を組み込む傾向は、ますます強まっている。環境に配慮した取り組みの一環として、ミニマルでラベルレスなデザインが世界中で人気を集めている。個性的なパッケージデザインは、ブランド・アイデンティティを定義する上で重要な役割を果たし、商標法の下、法的に保護され得る。タイでは、立体商標として保護されるためには、デザインが識別性または消費者の認知度の高さを示す必要があり、多くの場合、マーケティング記録や流通データなどのたくさんの証拠によって裏付けらる。これらの法的要件を早期に理解することで、企業はブランド・アイデンティティを守るための積極的な対策を講じることができる。商品の出所を自然に伝えるデザインについては、ESG（環境（Environment）、社会（Social）、企業統治（Governance））が重視される今日の環境において、法的保護を求めることが最優先事項である。   備考：本和文は英文記事を翻訳したものです。原文については、以下のリンクをご参照ください。 The Rise of ESG and Its Implications for 3D Mark Protection in Thailand            

On June 17, 2025, the National Assembly of Vietnam adopted Law No. 76/2025/QH15 (Amended LOE) amending and supplementing the 2020 Law on Enterprises, which aims to reshape the legal framework to enhance transparency and alignment with international standards. The Amended LOE took effect from July 1, 2025. Below are key notes on the Amended LOE. Recognition of Beneficial Owners The beneficial owner (BO) concept was previously addressed under Vietnam’s anti-money laundering framework. However, the formal recognition of a BO in the Amended LOE marks a pivotal advancement in embedding ownership transparency into corporate governance, in line with the G7 Financial Action Task Force’s standards on anti-money laundering and counter-terrorism financing. Under the Amended LOE and Decree No. 168/2025/ND-CP of the government dated June 30, 2025, on enterprise registration (Decree 168), a BO is identified through either equity ownership or control rights. Equity ownership: Individuals holding 25% or more of a company’s charter capital or voting shares, either directly or indirectly, qualify as BOs. Indirect ownership is further defined as ownership of at least 25% of charter capital or voting shares through an intermediary organization. Control rights: Individuals with the authority to make or influence major decisions are considered BOs. The actual control over a company includes the power (i) to appoint or remove most or all members of the board of directors or the members’ council or the general director of a company; (ii) to amend the charter; or (iii) to decide other key matters specified in the company’s charter. Notably, individuals representing state ownership in state-owned enterprises are excluded from the scope of the BO concept. Companies are responsible for collecting, updating, and retaining information about BOs and cooperating with authorities when requested to identify BOs, among other obligations. Additionally, any companies registered before July 1, 2025, must submit a list of their BOs when

Over the first half of 2025, the government of Vietnam has implemented a comprehensive suite of legislative reforms that significantly impact the country’s intellectual property (IP) framework. These amendments, most of which took effect on 1 July 2025, span the criminal, civil, administrative, and judicial sectors, and are part of a broader initiative to modernize Vietnam’s legal infrastructure, strengthen enforcement mechanisms, and harmonize domestic regulations with international standards. A summary of the key legislative changes and their potential implications for IP protection and enforcement across Vietnam is provided below. Criminal Code: Stricter penalties Under the 2025 amendments to Vietnam’s Criminal Code, penalties for offenses involving the manufacturing and trading of counterfeit goods have been significantly escalated. Individuals convicted of such violations now face fines ranging from VND 200 million to VND 2 billion (approximately USD 7,700 to USD 77,000; up from VND 100 million to VND 1 billion). For corporate entities, the penalties are even more severe, with fines ranging from VND 2 billion to VND 40 billion (roughly USD 77,000 to USD 1.54 million; up from VND 1 billion to VND 20 billion). These heightened penalties reflect the government’s intensified efforts to deter counterfeit-related crimes and protect consumer rights. Law on Handling Administrative Violations: Extended statute of limitations and application of electronic procedure The statute of limitations for addressing administrative violations in the IP sector is still two years. However, in cases where such violations are referred by procedural authorities, this period is extended by one year. The time taken by these authorities to process the case is now included within the overall limitation period. In addition, the Law on Handling Administrative Violations facilitates the use of electronic procedures, provided that the necessary infrastructure, technical systems, and information conditions are in place. Specifically, enforcement authorities are now permitted to deliver decisions, records, and related

Thai authorities have escalated efforts to block unlawful cross-border digital asset business operators. On June 19, 2025, the Ministry of Digital Economy and Society (MDES) issued a notification empowering it to ban internet access to operations or services offered by digital asset business operators who lack licenses from the Thailand Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) under the Emergency Decree on Digital Asset Businesses B.E. 2561 (2018). This ban, issued under the 2023 Royal Decree on Measures for the Prevention and Suppression of Technology Crime, particularly aims to block Thai users’ access to services offered by unlicensed offshore digital asset providers via their own apps or websites or through public social media platforms. Compliance Requirements The notification requires internet service providers and social media platforms selected by MDES to immediately impose internet access restrictions on identified apps, websites, and IP addresses of illegal operators upon receiving MDES orders. Takedown Orders There are two tracks for competent officials at MDES to issue orders to operators: If the competent official is notified by the SEC of licensing noncompliance by a particular digital asset business operator, the competent official can issue a takedown order to the operator upon approval from the permanent secretary of MDES. If the competent official independently discovers, or receives a complaint from any third party other than the SEC, that a digital asset business operator may have violated licensing requirements, the competent official can ask the SEC to verify and confirm the relevant facts and noncompliance before seeking approval from the permanent secretary of MDES to issue the takedown order. Streamlined Enforcement Prior to this notification, the SEC could obtain takedown orders only from Thai courts under the 2007 Computer Crime Act to take down or block access to unlicensed digital asset platforms and apps. This was a relatively lengthy process subject to limitations and complications. Under the

Vietnam’s Ministry of Public Security recently released a draft version of the 2025 Cybersecurity Law, which is intended to replace both the existing 2018 Cybersecurity Law and the 2015 Law on Network Information Security (LNIS). This consolidation reflects a broader effort by the Vietnamese government to streamline and centralize the legal framework governing cybersecurity, data protection, and information security to be under the sole authority of the Ministry of Public Security, moving away from the previous sharing of responsibility with the former Ministry of Information and Communications (which ceased operations earlier this year and merged with the Ministry of Science and Technology). This shift aims to eliminate overlaps and improve enforcement efficiency. The draft law is built upon the foundation of principles and provisions of both the 2018 Cybersecurity Law and the 2015 LNIS, while also introducing a wide range of amendments and new regulations. By merging the two laws, the government seeks to reduce legal fragmentation and ensure consistency in definitions, obligations, and enforcement mechanisms across related domains like data protection, IT system classification, and cybercrime prevention. The newly introduced amendments include enhanced obligations for service providers, stricter controls on information transmission, classification of IT systems, designation and protection of nationally important information systems, and sector-specific violations and compliance requirements. Highlights of the draft law are discussed below. Definition and Obligations of Service Providers The draft law clearly defines and significantly broadens the scope of entities considered “service providers” under its jurisdiction. This now includes businesses and individuals offering products or services in cyberspace, including both infrastructure and content online services, such as: Internet service providers (ISPs) and providers of telecommunications, hosting, servers, domain names, VPNs, proxy services, and cloud computing; Providers of social networks, websites, and online gaming; Financial institutions, banks, foreign bank branches in Vietnam, e-wallet providers, payment intermediaries, stock exchanges, and digital

In cross-border disputes, a recurring concern for claimants is whether they can protect respondents’ assets located in jurisdictions other than the seat of arbitration. This article explores whether Thai courts can issue interim measures, such as freezing orders, under Section 16 of the Thai Arbitration Act (2002) to support an arbitration seated outside of Thailand. Requesting Interim Measures Section 16 provides that a party to an arbitration agreement may request that the court impose interim measures, either before or during arbitral proceedings. If the court determines that it would have been able to impose such measures had the proceedings been conducted in court, it may proceed as requested. Notably, Section 16 does not limit its application to arbitrations seated in Thailand. It simply refers to “a party to an arbitration agreement,” which arguably includes both domestic and international arbitrations. Further, it allows for applications even before arbitration is commenced, provided that the arbitration is initiated within thirty days from the issuance of the order (or other period the court prescribes). A Hypothetical Scenario Consider the following scenario: Company A, incorporated in the Netherlands, and Company B, incorporated in the Cayman Islands, have entered into a contract containing a clause requiring arbitration at the Singapore International Arbitration Center (SIAC). A dispute arises, and Company A commences arbitration at SIAC. Company B holds significant assets in Thailand, such as bank accounts or real estate. Concerned that Company B might dispose of its assets before an award is rendered, Company A applies to the Thai court seeking a freezing order over those assets. Can the Thai court issue such an interim measure? The answer is not straightforward. Thai law is silent regarding whether Section 16 applies to arbitrations seated outside Thailand, leaving the door open for argument. Some academic sources suggest that the decision to grant relief rests

On June 26, 2025, the National Assembly of Vietnam adopted Resolution No. 216/2025/QH15 to extend the duration of agricultural land use tax exemption through December 31, 2030. This policy extension reaffirms the government’s ongoing efforts to support the agricultural sector, ensure national food security, and promote rural development. Key Takeaways Tax Exemption Period Extended: The new resolution continues the full exemption from agricultural land use tax as stipulated under Resolution No. 55/2010/QH12, as amended in 2016 and 2020. The tax exemption, which was originally set to expire at the end of 2025, will now remain in effect until December 31, 2030. Scope of Exemption: The exemption applies to all types of land currently eligible under the existing legal framework for agricultural land use tax relief. This typically includes land used by households, cooperatives, and non-commercial organizations for agricultural production, aquaculture, salt-making, and reforestation. Effective Date: Resolution 216 will take effect on January 1, 2026. During the interim period, tax exemption remains valid under existing laws and resolutions until the end of 2025. Implementation Guidance to Follow: The government is tasked with issuing detailed guidance to ensure effective implementation of this extended exemption. Businesses, cooperatives, and individuals engaged in agricultural activities should monitor upcoming regulations and instructions from relevant ministries. Outlook Vietnam’s extension of agricultural land use tax exemption demonstrates a strong policy commitment to rural economic stability and environmental sustainability. For land users, the exemption represents meaningful financial relief that can be reinvested into modernizing farming techniques, improving land efficiency, or transitioning to sustainable practices. While the extension itself is automatic, it is recommended that agricultural land users and stakeholders review their land use documentation and tax profiles to ensure alignment with eligibility requirements. Future implementation regulations may also introduce new compliance obligations that should be tracked closely.