Over the past two years, Laos has experienced a sharp depreciation in the value of the kip (LAK) against foreign currencies. To thwart this depreciation and get its currency back on track, the government took a series of measures and issued the Law on Foreign Exchange Management No. 15/NA of July 7, 2022 (the “FX Law”) to improve management of the foreign currency and reiterate restrictions on foreign currency in the country. The amended law also aimed to strengthen foreign exchange liquidity and increase the reserve of foreign currency held in Laos. This year, the prime minister of Laos issued the Order on the Implementation of Foreign Exchange Management, which came into force on July 14, 2023. The order addresses foreign currency use, movement, and possession and clarifies administrative roles regarding the FX Law. This article outlines some of the key points related to the FX Law and the prime minister’s recent order. Use of Foreign Currency Other than a major relaxation regarding remuneration for foreign employees, the amended FX Law retains Laos’ strict regulatory approach to the use of foreign currencies. The general rule is that foreign currency payments for goods, services, debt, dividends, or taxes are prohibited; these payments must be in LAK. The amended law also seems to prevent suggestions that a price in LAK may be adjusted based on another currency. One of the few exceptions to these requirements is for the export of goods and services abroad, in which case it is acceptable to receive payment in foreign currencies. Similarly, the import of goods may allow payment in foreign currency. Announcements or advertisements of the price of goods or services in a foreign currency are likewise prohibited, as is offering a salary in foreign currency when advertising a job in Laos. Similarly, employees’ remuneration,

Thailand’s Ministry of Industry (MOI) has issued a notification adopting the polluter-pays principle for generators of industrial waste in factories. The Notification of the Ministry of Industry on Management of Waste or Unused Materials B.E. 2566 (2023), enacted under the Factory Act B.E. 2535 (1992), marks a pivotal shift in the responsibilities and liabilities of factory operators as waste generators, which under the new notification no longer end when the waste is collected by a third-party waste processor. The notification, which was first issued in May 31, 2023, took effect on November 1, 2023, after the expiration of a grace period set by the MOI. The new MOI notification extends waste generators’ responsibilities and liabilities for management and disposal of waste from the time the waste is generated until it is properly and completely disposed of. These responsibilities include delivering the waste to the waste processor and overseeing the waste disposal processing, as well as undertaking proper measures in the event of failure by the waste processor, accident, or loss of the waste. Similar to the rules under the previous MOI notification on factory waste, the transport of waste outside the factory premises for disposal still requires permission from the Department of Industrial Works (DIW). However, the permission under the new MOI notification can now be applied for either electronically via its customer registration system (“i-Industry system”) or in person at the DIW. The MOI’s adoption of the polluter-pays principle for industrial waste heralds a significant shift in waste management liability and the costs of pollution prevention to the waste generators, who now need to ensure compliance with the rigorous criteria and compliance procedures outlined in the new MOI notification. For more details on the new rules, or on any aspect of Thailand’s waste management or environmental regulations for

The emergence of generative artificial intelligence (AI) has transformed the landscape for innovators and creators. As many legal practitioners have pointed out, it’s imperative for both developers of AI and artists using generative AI to understand the intricacies of intellectual property (IP) strategies so they can navigate this evolving terrain successfully. This article lays out some essential considerations relating to the major types of IP for both developers and creators in the realm of generative AI. IP Strategies for Developers of Generative AI Developers of generative AI technologies play a pivotal role in the innovation landscape. There are three overarching IP-related issues to consider: protecting their own intellectual property, mitigating the risk of violating other people’s IP rights, and IP commercialization. Key aspects of these concerns, along with suggested approaches for developers, are outlined below. Protecting IP Copyrights. One of the primary considerations for AI developers is the protection of AI-generated works, such as art and source code. The good news is that in most countries, these creations enjoy copyright protection without the need for registration. As a result, the works are automatically protected from the moment of creation. However, it’s crucial to maintain comprehensive records of your work to establish your ownership. Trademarks. Trademarks are vital for AI developers looking to establish and protect their brand. Pay close attention to Nice classifications, particularly class 9 (for software), class 35 (for business management and online marketing), and class 42 (for software design and development). Registering trademarks in these classes can provide robust protection for your brand and products. Patents. For truly innovative AI algorithms, techniques, or processes, consider the option of patenting. Patents offer strong protection, but they require a thorough application process and the documentation of your innovation, including evidence that the invention is novel, non-obvious, and practically

In this article originally published by World Trademark Review, Tilleke & Gibbins senior associate David Mol shares advice on how to collaborate effectively with customs officials at Cambodian border points and ports, offering a guide on how to successfully monitor for—and enforce against—counterfeit and grey market goods.   Can rights holders record trademark and brand-related IP information with Customs and, if so, how?   At present, there is no formal customs IP recordal system in place in Cambodia. However, rights holders may consider: a request letter to Customs; or recordal of an exclusive distributorship. Request letter to Customs A request letter to Customs would be an effective measure in cases where a rights holder is aware of a specific customs checkpoint that is being used to smuggle infringing goods. The rights holder may request to set up a meeting with Customs at the checkpoint to provide officials with: guidance on the issue; the IP rights involved; and information on product identification. The rights holder may further request the official’s assistance in monitoring shipments for certain goods. Customs has been open and cooperative in the past, setting up direct communication lines between rights holders and border officials. Officials then: monitor shipments; exchange sighting reports; and set up inspections where applicable. However, this option is not directly regulated under any laws or regulations, and can only be considered as an ad hoc approach in cases where the rights holder is aware of issues at a specific checkpoint. We usually do not recommend using this approach to alert all checkpoints in Cambodia, as it is rather time-intensive, requiring close cooperation and active liaison with officials. Instead, targeting specific checkpoints has proven to work in our experience. A request letter to Customs may apply to all types of intellectual property. However, a recently issued regulation that addresses suspensions