Thailand’s Department of Business Development (DBD) has clarified that even after the amended Civil and Commercial Code (CCC) comes into effect on February 7, 2023, companies with articles of association pursuant to the previous CCC will still have to follow the previous requirements for publication of shareholders’ meeting notices. The amended CCC removes the requirement for companies to publish a notice in a local newspaper when calling a general meeting of shareholders. Instead, companies can call a general meeting of shareholders either by sending a notice by post with acknowledgement of receipt to every shareholder whose name appears in the register of shareholders or by delivering the notice in person. However, the amended CCC still requires companies that have issued share certificates to bearers to publish a notice at least once in a local newspaper or via electronic means, as prescribed by the relevant ministerial regulations. Notwithstanding these updated requirements, the DBD has issued a clarification explaining that the amended CCC coming into effect on February 7 will not usher in a blanket change to the way most companies are required to notify shareholders about a general shareholders’ meeting. If a company’s articles of association were made pursuant to a prior version of the CCC, that company will still need to publish a notice calling for a general meeting of shareholders in a local newspaper—even after the new amendment becomes effective. If companies would like to change their practice so that they no longer have to publish this notice, they will need to amend their articles of association after the effective date of the amended CCC. For more information on the new requirements of the amended CCC, or on any aspect of corporate laws and corporate governance in Thailand, please contact Prisna Sungwanna at [email protected], or Kobchai Nitungkorn at

The available options for enforcing intellectual property (IP) in Cambodia have steadily increased over the past years, and both enforcement authorities and IP owners have gained valuable experience in enforcement operations. This experience, alongside new legal developments, has contributed to an increase in successful IP enforcement cases—most notably those involving the police or the courts in Cambodia. Targeted government policies have further fostered a more robust IP enforcement framework in Cambodia for both local and foreign IP owners alike. These owners collaborate with government actors in a bid to protect their IP in Cambodia and ensure that quality goods reach Cambodia’s consumers. Cambodia’s obligations under the Regional Comprehensive Economic Partnership (RCEP) related to IP and especially IP enforcement will lead to even more positive developments. Customs Enforcement Recently, many IP owners have shown particular interest in enforcement opportunities involving Customs in Cambodia, as these IP owners recognize Customs as a key authority in fighting the inflow and outflow of infringing goods. Customs (officially named the General Department of Customs and Excise) is responsible for monitoring the import and export of goods at border checkpoints, and levying duties and taxes on imports and exports. They facilitate trade, which is key for the private sector and government alike, and they collect taxes that can be used for the government and the public good. In this role, Customs is an important agency in fighting infringement, either by stopping imports so that the infringing goods do not reach consumers in Cambodia, or by taking action against exports, thereby making Cambodia less desirable as a manufacturing or transit hub for infringing goods. Besides improving the reputation of the country as a destination for investment and business, it can benefit the public as well, because infringing goods are often smuggled or misdeclared to avoid duties

Overview Although Vietnam has a number of mechanisms for accelerating the patent examination process, most of them have not lived up to the expectations of applicants. However, a fast-track patent prosecution highway (PPH) program was opened for the first time between the Intellectual Property Office of Vietnam (IP Office) and the Japan Patent Office (JPO) in January 2016, creating opportunities for all applications originating from Japan. The PPH program has been rolled out in the following stages: After more than six years of implementation, this program is considered successful and can be extended to support Japanese enterprises in establishing patent rights in Vietnam. Effectiveness This program has many advantages, such as: Applications originating from Japan are usually of good quality with clear and coherent specification It is possible that the IP Office’s requirements for specifications are already very consistent with Japanese applicants’ way of drafting specifications thanks to the JPO’s training programs for the IP Office. Patents in Japan usually have a short examination timeline and are granted very quickly, even within the application filing timeline in Vietnam (12 months from the priority date for applications filed under the Paris Convention and 31 months from the priority date for applications filed as PCT national phase applications). The coordination between the JPO and the IP Office has been very good. PPH applications are processed in a quick and efficient manner. Japanese applicants and their representatives also often coordinate well with the IP Office to rectify formality shortcomings and avoid prolongation of the examination period. Although there are no official statistics from the IP Office, according to independent statistics for applications whose PPH requests were filed by Tilleke & Gibbins’ associate firm (one of the most prolific filers under the PPH), the examination period for applications under the PPH has been

Indonesia’s current Trademark, Patent, Industrial Design, and Copyright Laws require all intellectual property (IP) license agreements to be recorded in order to have binding force for third parties. Since the enactment of Government Regulation No. 36 of 2018 on Recordation of IP License Agreements (GR 36/2018), recordation of IP license agreements has been carried out by Indonesia’s Directorate-General of Intellectual Property (DGIP). Even before the issuance of GR 36/2018, the DGIP had started receiving applications for recordation of IP license agreements after the Ministry of Law and Human Rights (MOLHR) issued an IP recordation implementing regulation under MOLHR Regulation No. 8 of 2016 on Requirements and Procedures for Recordation of IP License Agreements. However, as the mechanism for processing such applications had not been determined by the DGIP, the department left the requests unprocessed until the issuance of GR 36/2018. Prior to that, the preferred alternative was to file a letter of intention to record the license agreement with the DGIP so that related parties could rely on the letter in the absence of a regulation. This article outlines the general requirements for IP license recordation in Indonesia and considers how the current system works with the country’s laws and regulatory environment for copyrights—particularly the necessity to obtain proof of copyright ownership prior to recording a copyright license agreement. Overview of IP License Agreements As noted above, IP license agreements must be recorded in order to be binding for third parties. License agreements that are not recorded will not have legal effect against third parties, although they are still legally binding for the contracting parties. For an IP license agreement to be eligible for recordation under GR 36/2018, it must meet the following main requirements: The licensor must not grant a license if the term of protection of the