Intellectual property specialists from Tilleke & Gibbins in Thailand have contributed an updated Intellectual Property Transactions in Thailand overview for Thomson Reuters Practical Law, an online publication that provides comprehensive legal guides for jurisdictions worldwide. The Thailand overview was authored by Darani Vachanavuttivong, managing partner of Tilleke & Gibbins and managing director of the firm’s regional IP practice; Titikaan Ungbhakorn, senior associate and patent agent; and San Chaithiraphant, senior associate. The chapter delivers a high-level examination of critical aspects of IP law, including IP assignment and licensing, research and development collaborations, IP in mergers and acquisitions (M&A), securing loans with intellectual property rights, settlement agreements, employee-related IP issues, competition law, taxation, and non-tariff trade barriers. Key topics covered in the chapter include: IP assignment: Basis and formalities for assignments of patents, utility models, trademarks, copyright, design rights, trade secrets, confidential information, and domain names. IP licensing: Scope and formalities for licensing patents, utility models, trademarks, copyright, design rights, and trade secrets. Research and development collaborations: Management of improvements, derivatives, and joint ownership of IP. IP aspects of M&A: Due diligence and critical considerations during mergers and acquisitions. Practical Law, a legal reference resource from Thomson Reuters, publishes a range of guides for hundreds of jurisdictions and practice areas. The Intellectual Property Transactions Global Guide is a valuable resource for legal practitioners, covering numerous jurisdictions worldwide. To view the latest version of the Intellectual Property Transactions in Thailand overview, please visit the Practical Law website and enroll in the free Practical Law trial to gain full access.

Thailand’s Office of Insurance Commission (OIC) recently opened a public hearing on draft notifications regarding criteria, procedures, and conditions for naming life and non-life insurance brokerage businesses. The draft notifications aim to establish guidelines for naming and describing such brokerages. Key Principles Licensed insurance brokers must use “life insurance” or “non-life insurance” in their business name. When establishing an office, brokers must display a visible nameplate at the office front, starting out with the Thai words for “life insurance broker office” or “non-life insurance broker office” and the broker’s name; any signs indicating the office location must adhere to these same naming conventions. Inside, offices must display the insurance broker’s license and the power-of-attorney for receiving insurance premiums at the office. Noncompliance with these key principles may result in the OIC taking corrective action. Outlook After the draft notifications pass the public hearing stage, which closes on July 19, 2024, the OIC will consider the feedback and finalize the notifications. The duration of this process depends on the complexity of the notification and the public feedback. Normally, each notification takes at least 3–6 months before issuance. For more details on the OIC’s draft notifications or on any issue concerning insurance regulations in Thailand, please contact Athistha (Nop) Chitranukroh at [email protected], Witchupong Chittchang at [email protected], Ajaree Trachukul at [email protected], Thammapas Chanpanich at [email protected], or Sireethorn Wijan at [email protected].

Appeals of unfavorable decisions on protection in the IP field are very common in Vietnam. In 2023, there were 845 appeals filed at the IP Office, including 780 trademark appeals. In most cases, however, applicants view the appeal procedure as almost a last resort, as the lengthy examination process can lead to serious delays in appeal settlement. In fact, it can take four to seven years, or even longer, for an appeal to be resolved, and a disappointingly low number of cases are settled each year, despite the towering number of appeals pending. Nonetheless, there are reasons for optimism. Inspection and Appeal Department On 1 July 2024, the IP Office issued Decision No. 575/QD-SHTT promulgating the Regulations on Organization and Operation of the Inspection and Appeal Department – formerly the Enforcement and Appeal Department – whose functions include, among others, advising and assisting the Director General of the IP Office in resolving appeals related to the process of establishing IP rights. The Inspection and Appeal Department has the duty to handle appeals and denunciations related to the process of establishing IP rights, as well as requests for termination and cancellation of the validity of registrations. In addition, it can provide expert opinions, and appoint knowledgeable personnel to participate in the IP Office’s Advisory Council to settle appeals. While the renamed department’s responsibilities do not differ greatly, on paper, from those of the previous Enforcement and Appeal Department, the issuance of new regulations indicates the IP Office’s renewed focus on the importance of improving the appeal procedure. Scope of IP appeals expanded In addition, in November 2023, the Ministry of Science and Technology issued Circular No. 23/2023/TT-BKHCN (“Circular 23”) providing further guidance for implementation of the amended 2022 IP Law and its subordinate legislation. Article 35 of Circular 23 has clarified and extended the list of

Thailand traditionally has had a reputation as a “crossroads” for numerous illegal activities and of the laundering of significant sums of tainted money. Member of the Financial Action Task Force (FATF)? No. Any Egmont members? Yes. Thailand’s Anti-Money Laundering Office (AMLO) is a member of the Egmont Group. Regulation The relevant law, known as the Anti-Money Laundering Act (the Act), was passed in March 1999 with the aim of combating not only the drug trade but also other illicit activities, such as corruption, criminal fraud and prostitution. There have been a number of changes and updates to the Act, the most recent one in late 2015, in which the Act was amended to include: Additional predicate offences such as offences relating to human trafficking, online gambling and offences relating to unfair practices relating to derivatives and agricultural commodity futures. Broader scope of money laundering offence. Non-disclosure obligations to applicable financial institutions and reporting entities. Compulsory training to financial institutions and reporting entities’ employees responsible to monitor and ensure compliance with the Act. Retention period. Enhanced penalties Additionally, discussions did take place mooting further changes to the Act, set out in 2020 and 2021 drafts. Proposed changes included suggestions to expand the definitions of financial institutes, predicate offences and professions, as well as to impose greater reporting and due diligence responsibilities on companies subject to the Act. However, recent amendments to the Act in 2022 only included minor procedural and substantive changes that did not materially alter or expand the Act. The most notable amendments were changes to an injured party’s rights to claim damages caused by a predicate offence and the rights of beneficiaries claiming assets seized by the government in connection with a predicate offence. Financial intelligence unit Of the total number of transactions reported to AMLO annually, a relatively small portion result in further investigation for violation of the Act. That

The need for privacy and security has grown in tandem with the rapid proliferation of internet-enabled technologies. This is a major concern for consumers and individuals, and governments are increasingly mindful of online threats to their national security and their citizens. All of this represents an imposing challenge for companies—especially now that technology has enabled them to operate with relative ease across jurisdictions throughout the world.

On July 3, 2024, the Committee on Contracts of Thailand’s Consumer Protection Board announced the Notification re: Stipulation of Cash-on-Delivery (COD) Logistics Services as a Controlled-Receipt Business under the Consumer Protection Act B.E. 2522 (1979). The notification regulates businesses “providing goods transportation services that collect cash on delivery,” which refers to business operators responsible for transporting goods from sender (i.e., the merchant of the goods) to consumer (i.e., the purchaser of the goods) and upon delivery collects payment from the consumer either in cash or via bank transfer. The obligations that the notification imposes on these business operators are described below. Receipts Business operators must prepare a receipt as evidence of payment according to the specified requirements and deliver it to the consumer immediately upon receiving payment for the goods. The receipt must include text in Thai that is clearly visible and legible, with a font size of at least two millimeters and no more than 11 characters per inch. The text must contain essential information and conditions as specified in the notification, including: The duration that the business operator will hold the money received from the consumer before releasing it to the sender; The timeframe within which the consumer must notify the business operator to return the goods and request a refund; Information about the employees who deliver the goods and collect payment from consumers; The name of the person authorized to issue the receipt; Details about the parcel specifying the nature of the goods, including the name, type, kind, characteristics, size, weight, quantity, color, volume or capacity, and price of the goods; and A statement that the consumer has the right to reject the delivered goods or receive a refund. The receipt also must not contain any statement prohibited by the notification. Examples include: Text stipulating that business operators and senders will not issue refunds; Statements prohibiting consumers from exchanging or

The landscape of intellectual property (IP) has transformed alongside advancements in technology, transitioning from traditional methods to modern online approaches. A growing number of IP infringers are moving their illegal activities to the online sphere, particularly through the sale of counterfeit goods on their websites, social media, or e-commerce platforms. In response to these shifting pressures, Thailand implemented the Computer-Related Crime Act B.E. 2550 (CCA) on July 18, 2007, and amended it in 2017, aiming to enhance the effectiveness of combating online infringement by empowering government officials to request that the court block computer data (called “website-blocking”) that infringes upon other parties’ intellectual property rights, as per section 20(3) of the CCA. From 2018 to May 2024, Thailand’s Criminal Court and Central Intellectual Property and International Trade Court have issued 53 orders to block more than 1,779 infringing URLs. One significant recent development is the Criminal Court’s establishment of the Technology Crime Division, which has been operating since April 1, 2024. Its purpose is to address criminal offenses that occur through electronic means, which should then be handled in an effective and prompt manner by judges who have expertise on technological crimes. In addition, several current measures to combat technology crime, including section 20(3) of the CCA, require court orders for the prevention of electronic criminal offenses or online infringement. The Technology Crime Division has the jurisdiction to consider and grant these orders, which will help expedite the approval process and ensure review by specialized judges. Scope of the Technology Crime Division The announcement of the establishment of the Technology Crime Division within the Criminal Court was published in the Government Gazette on March 18, 2024, with operations commencing on April 1, 2024. The Technology Crime Division is empowered to: Consider and adjudicate technology crime cases, except cases falling under the jurisdiction of the

In this chapter from Eversheds Sutherland’s Global Freezing Order Guide, attorneys from Tilleke & Gibbins provide answers to common questions regarding civil freezing orders and their particulars in Thailand. 1. Are freezing orders (or their equivalent referred to below) available in civil legal proceedings in this jurisdiction and what is their effect? Yes. The effect of a freezing order is that the respondent is prohibited from transferring or disposing of the assets referred to in the freezing order until a specified time (for example, a further hearing, a judgment or payment) or a further order of the Court. The property subject to a freezing order may include the property in dispute or the respondent’s property, including money or property owed to the respondent by a third party. Thai law is silent on the issue of whether a freezing order issued by a Thai Court could potentially apply to assets located outside of Thailand. In light of this, in practice, a Thai Court is unlikely to include assets located outside of Thailand in a freezing order. It is possible that a Thai Court could order a respondent over whom it has jurisdiction not to transfer any property or other assets located abroad, however, enforceability may be difficult, with limited consequences where the respondent refused to comply with such an order. 2. Are other interim orders commonly made in conjunction with a freezing (or equivalent) order? No. The Court does not typically place obligations on the respondent to provide disclosure of the nature, value and location of his, her or its assets, with the onus being on the applicant to provide the Court with the information available. 3. Briefly what is the relevant legal test? The applicant has to prove that there is good cause for the complaint. The applicant must also prove that the respondent