On July 23, 2024, the State Bank of Vietnam (SBV) published a draft circular regulating the implementation of open (publicly available) application programming interfaces, or Open APIs, in the banking industry (Draft Circular) to collect public comments. Open APIs in the banking sector are APIs of banks that allow third parties to process data for their own use or to provide products and services to customers. Urgent need Currently, the development of Open APIs in Vietnam is fragmented, with each bank using different API standards and security standards. There is no common standard for information technology systems, information storage, security, connectivity, or legal frameworks. Therefore, the promulgation of a regulation on Open APIs is urgently needed to create a clear legal basis and guidance for electronic banking transactions, especially in connecting to bank information systems and processing customer data safely, and creating new, innovative products and services to meet the increasing needs of customers. Cooperation of banks required The Draft Circular requires banks to provide Open API services to third parties for connection to the bank system and data processing. Banks have the right to refuse or suspend Open API services if third parties do not meet specified conditions. However, banks will be responsible for ensuring the quality and security of data, providing tools for customer data queries and revocation of third-party data processing rights, and coordinating with third parties and authorities to resolve issues. The Draft Circular standardizes Open API functions for all banks according to the Open API function list and the technical standards list specified in the Draft Circular. Open API service contract The template Open API service contract between banks and third parties using Open API services must have certain required contents such as provisions regarding confidentiality, data use purpose, and that the security level

The popularity of the franchise business model has been growing rapidly in Southeast Asia in recent years, with some of the world’s top brands becoming common sights in the commercial districts and shopping malls of major regional cities in Cambodia, Indonesia, Laos, Myanmar, Thailand, and Vietnam. While for most countries in this part of the world, franchising has not been explicitly mentioned in legislation, well prepared franchise business operations can comfortably adapt to each country’s regulatory framework, and the growth is poised to continue even as the global retail sector redesigns and redoubles its efforts in the wake of the COVID-19 outbreak. In fact, the franchise business model, which is both global and hyper-local at once, is one of the most promising solutions that entrepreneurs are turning to in their quest to overcome the challenges of the new economic reality. The Regional Guide to Franchising Law in Southeast Asia provides key, up-to-date insights into the legal frameworks regulating franchise operations in these Southeast Asian countries, and helps brand owners understand the most relevant laws, authorities, and procedures for their business. Some of the essential topics covered for each jurisdiction include considerations in negotiating and designing franchise agreements, protecting intellectual property rights, and important information on judicial and arbitral procedures should a dispute arise between franchisor and franchisee. Practitioners from Tilleke & Gibbins’ offices in Cambodia, Indonesia, Laos, Myanmar, Thailand, and Vietnam contributed to guide—not only by providing legal expertise on the laws and mechanisms applicable in each jurisdiction, but also by examining strategies for establishing and running resilient franchise operations in Southeast Asia. The full guide can be accessed as a PDF through the button below.

Addressing technical barriers to trade is a key priority for the Association of Southeast Asian Nations (ASEAN) as part of trade facilitation in achieving the single market and production base under the ASEAN Economic Community directive agreed in 2015. The region has been undertaking positive steps toward standard harmonization in ASEAN priority sectors, integrating and bringing about regulatory convergence by taking into account the diversities that exist in the ten ASEAN member states. Health supplements in ASEAN are under the responsibility of the Traditional Medicine and Health Supplement Product Working Group (TMHS PWG). One of the TMHS PWG’s outputs is the ASEAN Agreement on a Regulatory Framework for Health Supplements, which includes various technical requirements for health supplements that participating member states must adopt by adjusting their domestic regulations. The key ingredients of these health supplements are vitamins and minerals. While all ASEAN countries allow the use of vitamins and minerals in health supplements, the amounts allowed for use vary, depending on the nutritional requirements deemed appropriate by each country. Partly in response to these efforts for regional harmonization, there have been important changes to vitamin and mineral limits in certain ASEAN countries that are worth monitoring. Some of these are outlined below. Thailand In January 2024, the Thai Food and Drug Administration (TFDA) updated the Thai Recommended Daily Intake (Thai RDI) guidelines for the Thai population. Subsequently, the TFDA adjusted the vitamin and mineral limits in order to comply with the updated Thai RDI and to follow the ASEAN Agreement on a Regulatory Framework for Health Supplements. The TFDA’s adjustment of vitamin and mineral limits for use in food supplements came in Notification of the Ministry of Public Health (No. 448) B.E. 2566 (2023) Re: Food Supplements (No. 5), which was published in the Government Gazette on January

In 2023, Vietnam’s Intellectual Property Rights Infringement Prevention Cooperation Program reported that 776 cases of IPR infringement were resolved nationwide. Of these, 546 were addressed through administrative measures, while criminal proceedings were initiated in just five cases. These statistics clearly show that administrative measures overwhelmingly dominate the response to counterfeit goods, with criminal actions being relatively rare. This raises an intriguing question: Why do IPR holders prefer administrative routes over criminal measures in Vietnam? And what challenges and obstacles make criminal enforcement less commonly pursued in these cases? Overlapping legal provisions Under Vietnam’s Penal Code, two key offenses address counterfeit goods: Manufacturing and trading in counterfeit goods under Article 192. Manufacturing and trading in industrial property rights-infringing goods under Article 226. Both provisions regulate counterfeit goods, yet they suffer from a lack of clear definitions and guidelines for application. Article 192 does not explicitly define “counterfeit goods”. Instead, authorities refer to Article 3.7 of Decree No. 98/2020/ND-CP, as amended, which outlines several categories of counterfeit goods, including: (i) utility counterfeits (goods not meeting normal expectations of usage or function), (ii) substandard goods, (iii) counterfeit goods based on misrepresentation, and (iv) counterfeit stamps, labels, and packaging. Meanwhile, Article 226 specifically deals with counterfeit goods that infringe trademark rights. These “trademark-counterfeit goods” are defined under Article 213.2 of the IP Law as goods or packaging bearing trademarks or signs that are identical or confusingly similar to protected trademarks for the same goods, used without the trademark owner’s permission. In this regard, “counterfeit goods” and “trademark-counterfeit goods” are treated as distinct, non-overlapping concepts, each corresponding to a separate offense. However, in practice, there is often a gray area where the two overlap. Many cases involve infringing goods that meet the criteria for both categories, allowing authorities to apply both regulations simultaneously. For