In seeking to develop a comprehensive portfolio of trademark rights, many companies have begun to look beyond their product names and logos. For at least the past decade, these businesses have been seeking trademark registration of other aspects of their overall branding strategies, including the packages they use for their products. One such forward-thinking business is The Coca-Cola Company (Coca-Cola), which sought to obtain three-dimensional registrations of its famous bottle designs in Thailand.

It is widely recognized that juristic persons exist in the legal context only, under which a corporation will be liable for all obligations done in its name. Thus, according to the general principle, the directors of a company will not be held personally liable for the acts or obligations undertaken in the name of the company. This general principle, however, will not apply in the specific context of intellectual property rights infringement.

With Vietnam’s entry into the WTO, it is expected that franchising activity in the country will increase markedly over the next few years. There are presently a handful of major franchises operating in the country, including Kentucky Fried Chicken, Lotteria, Jollibee, Pho 24, Gloria Jean’s Coffees, Buntamita, and Cartridge World. In the past, Vietnamese law did not provide a clear basis for franchising arrangements, but the passage of Decree No. 35 and Circular No. 09 in 2006 laid the groundwork for franchising to develop in Vietnam.

The Consumer Case Procedure Act (CCPA), which came into effect on August 23, 2008, was heralded as a new law that would give better protection to consumers. The intention was to give consumers greater access to justice, by making the procedure for consumers to file claims more user-friendly and more efficient. In practice, however, the CCPA has had the opposite effect of actually increasing the length of time taken to handle cases. This article illustrates the problem of delays under the CCPA using two case studies as examples.

The variety and ever-changing nature of regulations governing patent and drug approvals across the Asian region, along with policies which often favor local generics, can pose a daunting challenge for multinational research-based pharmaceutical companies. This article takes a look at some of the major issues and how they can be addressed.

Acting as an officer or director for a Thai company can be an honor. It is a position that not only affirms a person’s role in shaping company policies, but can also symbolize that person’s place in the overall economic marketplace. In short, it is a title with responsibility. Most officers and directors accept the fact that they are charged with significant responsibility for the company’s operations.

Different intellectual property laws, which separately cover patent, trademark, and copyright, are intended to cover different types of creations. Theoretically, to ensure that society benefits from protected works, a single creation should only enjoy intellectual property (IP) protection under one law, rather than benefitting from concurrent protection under multiple laws. In Thailand, however, two Supreme Court judgments have held that one creation may enjoy concurrent protection under different IP laws.

On June 19, 2009, the National Assembly of Vietnam adopted several amendments to the IP Law, which will enter into effect on January 1, 2010. The amendments regarding plant variety protection clarify a number of issues. Importantly, the amendments have expanded the parties that are eligible to file for protection in Vietnam by adding foreign organizations and individuals having permanent residence or offices or having establishments producing or trading in plant varieties in countries that are signatories to agreements on plant variety protection for which Vietnam is also a member.