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

As Thailand is a contracting state of the UN Convention on the Recognition and Enforcement of Foreign Arbitral Awards, international arbitral awards can, in principle, be enforced in Thailand. However, not all awards will necessarily be enforceable. The Arbitration Act BE 2545 (2002) gives courts the discretion to deny the enforcement of an award if the court determines that enforcing it would be contrary to “public order or the good morals of the people” (often referred to as “public policy”). Similarly, the Arbitration Act allows a court to set aside a domestic award if its recognition would violate public policy. This discretionary power of the court is prescribed by the law and does not require any party to make an argument on public policy grounds to trigger such power. A recent Supreme Court judgment demonstrates that a court considering an award will review the legality of the arbitral proceedings as well as the content of the award. In this case, the Supreme Court set aside an award on the grounds that it violated public policy because it was the result of arbitration that did not proceed in accordance with the relevant law. Under Thai bankruptcy law, after the Bankruptcy Court accepts a request for rehabilitation of a debtor, all civil proceedings against that debtor, including arbitration proceedings, must be stayed until the court orders otherwise or until the rehabilitation case ceases. In this matter before the Supreme Court, however, the arbitrator continued with the arbitration and went on to render an award even after the court had accepted the request for rehabilitation. The award was later challenged to be set aside on the grounds that continuing with the arbitration was against public policy. While setting aside the award was arguably unnecessary, in this case (as the relevant bankruptcy law

Four of Tilleke & Gibbins’ labor and employment specialists in Vietnam have contributed the Vietnam chapter to the newly issued Labor and Employment Disputes 2024, a comprehensive guide from Lexology Panoramic to labor and employment dispute resolution in various jurisdictions around the world. The Vietnam chapter covers the following topics: Pre-action considerations: Key requirements, third-party funding, contingency fee arrangements Issuing a claim: Forum, territorial jurisdiction, standing, commencing claims, fees, service Defendants and legal personality: Types of claims, time limits, counterclaims Case management: Procedure, rules, amendments to claims, adding parties to proceedings, consolidating proceedings Class and collective actions: Special considerations Evidence: Witnesses, tactical considerations Interim relief: Availability, requirements Trial: Hearings conduct and typical time frames, confidentiality and public access, media reporting Elements of successful claims and burden of proof Alternative dispute resolution: Available types, requirements and expectations Enforcement: Collective employment and labor rights, enforcement of collective rights, standing Remedies and enforcement: Available remedies, assessing compensation, enforcement mechanisms Appeals: Appeal procedure and time frames, other means of challenge Update and trends: Recent cases and developments, technology developments, other issues The Vietnam chapter was authored by Truc Thi Thanh, Sarah Galeski, Linh Ngoc Nguyen, and Kien Trung Trinh. Tilleke & Gibbins also contributed the Thailand chapter to Labor and Employment Disputes 2024. The full Vietnam chapter is available below as a PDF.

Following the enactment of the Tax Administration Law (TAL), Myanmar’s Ministry of Planning and Finance has issued Notification No. 44/2024, which outlines directives and procedures for addressing violations of tax law provisions. These procedures, which came into force on June 13, 2024, primarily focus on three key areas: tax evasion, impeding tax administration, and failure to preserve secrecy. The notification primarily aims to address tax evasion, impeding tax administration, and failure to preserve secrecy, classifying these offenses as either subject to arrest without warrant or not. Notably, tax evasion is classified as an offense subject to arrest without warrant, while impeding tax administration and failure to preserve secrecy are not. The notification also prescribed the forms for notifying taxpayers before taking any action. Tax Evasion Tax evasion refers to a taxpayer who willfully evades the assessment, payment, or collection of tax. Penalties for such offenses include fines of MMK 250,000 (approx. USD 120) or 100% of the evaded tax (whichever is greater), imprisonment for up to seven years, or both. The enforcement process for tax evasion requires the chief officer of the township revenue department or an officer in charge (the tax authority) to assess the relevant documents and information provided by the taxpayer. If a taxpayer is found to be evading tax, the tax authority must send a notice in the prescribed form for verification within 15 days. Taxpayers may apply for a one-time extension of 15 days to submit requested documents and make disclosures. If the taxpayer cannot fulfill the requirements as instructed, the tax authority will seek approval from the director general of the Internal Revenue Department (IRD) for criminal proceedings as cognizable offences. Impeding Tax Administration and Failure to Preserve Secrecy Impeding tax administration refers to obstruction or attempted obstruction of taxation staff or officers