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 applicable. Trade secrets. Protect valuable assets such

Thailand’s Electronic Transaction Development Agency (ETDA) has released two new subordinate regulations under the Royal Decree on Digital Platform Services: one detailing the assessment of digital platform services (DPSs) that will be deemed “high-risk” and subject to additional obligations, and another setting guidelines on user verification and authentication for all DPSs. The two subordinate regulations are summarized below. Impact Assessment of DPS Operations Under the Royal Decree on Digital Platform Services, DPS operations that have the risk of seriously impacting financial and commercial security, reliability and credibility of data message systems, or the general public are subject to additional obligations. The first subordinate regulation mentioned above (officially titled Notification of the Electronic Transactions Commission Re: Criteria for Impact Assessment on Operation of Digital Platform Services) outlines the criteria for the ETDA to determine which DPSs are “high-risk.” DPSs falling under this designation include: DPSs whose total value of transactions conducted through the platform in Thailand exceeds THB 100 million (approx. USD 2.8 million) per year; DPSs whose operators have not registered their entities with the Department of Business Development (DBD)—notably overseas operators—and that have 100 or more merchants or business users in Thailand or total users in Thailand between 5 and 10 percent of the country’s population (i.e., approx. 3.3–6.1 million users, calculated using official 2022 figures); DPSs that allow their users to freely post certain messages, or do certain acts, that may affect the public in certain cases, such as: (1) unlawful messages or acts; (2) messages or acts that may affect a child’s rights or people’s fundamental rights; and (3) messages or acts that may negatively affect political opinions of Thai citizens (whether before or after an election) or statements or actions likely to negatively affect other individuals due to gender differences or sexual violence. After considering these criteria and the details provided by

On November 14, 2023, Thailand’s Personal Data Protection Committee (PDPC) published a draft notification on collection of personal data regarding criminal records. The draft notification aims to provide clarifications and prescribe further criteria for processing criminal record data under the Personal Data Protection Act (PDPA), which generally requires the processing of criminal records to be carried out under the control of the relevant official authority under the law or under a data protection measure implemented according to rules prescribed by the PDPC. After its eventual passage, the draft notification will have important implications for businesses’ recruitment and human resources activities in relation to individuals with criminal records. Key aspects of the draft notification include the following: “Personal data regarding a criminal record” and “criminal record data” denote personal data related to the investigations of criminal offenses, criminal prosecution, or criminal punishment that is official information or certified by the relevant supervisory authority, regardless of whether that action is connected to a final judgment. Under the draft notification, data controllers may process criminal record data for the purpose of a recruitment process, checking the qualifications of personnel, and considering the suitability of a person for a position if the processing activities are required by law or when a data controller obtains explicit consent from the data subject. Furthermore, the necessity of processing the criminal record data must be announced at the beginning of the recruitment process. Data controllers’ requests for explicit consent to collect a data subject’s criminal record data must also notify the data subject of the consequences of not providing consent or withdrawing consent. The draft notification sets the allowable retention period for criminal record data at a maximum of six months from the end of the processing activities specified above. After the retention period ends, the criminal record data must be deleted, destroyed,

Thailand’s Revenue Department has issued an order clarifying its recent order imposing personal income tax (PIT) on the offshore-sourced income of Thailand tax residents whenever it is brought into Thailand. The clarifying order, which was issued on November 20, 2023, confirms that the new rule will not apply to offshore-sourced income earned before January 1, 2024, which is the date the order comes into effect. This means that offshore-sourced income earned before January 1, 2024, will not be subject to PIT if it is brought into Thailand after the year 2023. This grandfather protection means that Thai tax residents will not have to pay PIT on offshore-sourced income earned before 2024 and brought into Thailand at any time after 2023. This is favorable to many who have earned income from offshore sources but may not have had sufficient time to revise their tax planning in response to the new rule. For more details on Thailand’s taxation of tax residents’ offshore-sourced income, or on any aspect of tax laws and regulations in Thailand, please contact Tilleke & Gibbins at [email protected].

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 of shipments based on IP infringements does not include suspensions based on patents and designs. This

On October 3, 2023, Thailand’s Board of Investment (BOI) issued a new regulation clarifying the eligibility criteria for investment promotion under the BOI category “5.10 Development of software, platforms for digital services, or digital content.” To be eligible for BOI promotion under the digital activity category, projects must meet criteria related to local development, minimum investment amount, machinery and equipment, and development processes. These criteria for category 5.10 activities, along with the latest clarifications from the BOI, are detailed in the table below. Tax Incentives The BOI also clarified the method for calculating corporate income tax (CIT) exemptions. The CIT cap amount is calculated on an annual basis from the prescribed expenses incurred after applying for BOI promotion and occurring during the year for which the CIT exemption is claimed. The allowances include 100% of expenses for salaries for newly hired Thai IT personnel, technology-related training, and obtaining quality standards (such as ISO 29110). The revenue of projects that qualify for CIT exemption must be from sales or services directly related to software, platforms for digital services, or digital content developed as promoted by the BOI, including licensing fees, subscription fees, pay-per-use expenses, in-app purchase fees, usage fees, revenue sharing, advertising fees, and so on. For more details on BOI promotion for digital activities, or on any aspect of investment promotion in Thailand, please contact Athistha (Nop) Chitranukroh at [email protected] or +66 2056 5600, Napassorn Lertussavavivat at [email protected] or +66 2056 5662, or Thammapas Chanpanich at [email protected] or +66 2056 5561.

Four decisions from the Expert Committee under Thailand’s Personal Data Protection Act B.E. 2562 (2019) (PDPA) indicate that there will no longer be any relaxation of PDPA enforcement. The enforcement of Thailand’s seminal data protection law had been relaxed for more than a year when, on October 18, 2023, the Personal Data Protection Committee (PDPC) published the first decision made by the Expert Committee on the imposition of administrative measures against a company pursuant to authority granted to it under the Notification of the PDPC Re: Rules for the Consideration of the Imposition of Administrative Penalties by the Expert Committee B.E. 2565 (2022), which was one of the first subordinate regulations issued under the PDPA. Shortly thereafter, on October 19, October 25, and November 15, three additional Expert Committee decisions were published. These three decisions made by the Expert Committee are summarized below. October 18 Decision The complainant in this case lodged a complaint with the Expert Committee alleging that an insurance company contacted him to offer the company’s products without his consent. The complaint further claimed that when the complainant requested the company to disclose how his personal data had been acquired and asked the company to stop contacting him through any channel, the company did not take any action on the requests. The insurance company appeared to have obtained the personal data of the complainant from another source prior to the PDPA becoming fully effective (i.e., June 1, 2022). As the Expert Committee explained in its order, the company failed to comply with its obligations under the PDPA regarding the collection of personal data from another source, which requires consent as a legal basis; failed to comply with the grandfather provision by not publicizing opt-out procedures to enable the data subject to withdraw his consent easily; and did not grant the data

他のタイプの企業紛争と同様に、税務関連の紛争はしばしば、法廷外の問題を解決しようとする努力から始まります。商業上の関係、法的費用、及びその解決をめぐる不確実性に潜在的な負担がかかることを考えると、税務訴訟に期待することは難しいかもしれない。しかしながら、税務訴訟が救済を求める唯一の手段となる場合もある。 税金に関連した法的救済の追求を検討している個人及び企業にとって、タイの法制度は、紛争解決策にとって、利用しやすく、偏りのない、公平なプラットフォームを提供している。『タイにおける税務訴訟』は、タイの法的枠組みの中で税金に関連した紛争をナビゲートするための概要を提供しており、タイの税務訴訟の状況の中で、手続と実務の基本的な理解を読者に提供することを目的としている。 完全なガイドは、下のボタンから入手できます。   備考：本和文は英文記事を翻訳したものです。原文については、以下のリンクをご参照ください。 Tax Litigation in Thailand