For the past two years, the COVID-19 pandemic has had a severe impact on most businesses in Thailand, and many traditional businesses have had to take drastic measures to survive, such as reducing wages and benefits, temporarily ceasing their operations, and even laying off employees. However, a number of innovative startups and online businesses have bucked this trend, and have instead seen rapid growth during this period. These companies face a different problem: a struggle to retain their employees in the face of a fierce battle among competitors to attract top talent. This is particularly true for technicians and programmers whose expertise and technical knowledge are valuable assets for companies in these sectors. The loss of employees to competitors can pose many risks to a business, including the exposure of trade secrets and the loss of key business contacts. To protect these interests, businesses can prepare employment contracts which contain non-competition, non-solicitation and confidentiality clauses. These clauses can be used to restrict employees, including after they leave the company. This article will explain how businesses can make use of such contract clauses. Non-competition Non-compete clauses prevent an employee from working for a competitor during and after their employment. The Thai Supreme Court has recognised and enforced non-compete clauses. However, courts must balance the interest of the business against the human rights of the employee, including the right to work. In particular, the court will consider whether the business has a legitimate interest and whether the non-compete clause is necessary to protect it. In doing this, the court will focus on a number of different features. Employee’s position and duties. One key consideration is the role of the employee and their exposure to the company’s confidential information and technology. If staff are not exposed to confidential information, there is no need to prohibit them from

Attorneys from Tilleke & Gibbins contributed the Thailand chapter of the recently released Patent Litigation Global Guide, a Q&A-style guide that offers detailed overviews of courtroom and litigation procedure in connection with patent dispute resolution. The guide, which is published by Practical Law, provides comprehensive overviews of patent litigation in 35 jurisdictions worldwide. The Thailand section of the guide was coauthored by Nandana Indananda, partner, Piyawat Kayasit, senior associate, and Manaswee Wongsuryat, associate, and it discusses the following main issues: Sources of law Court system Substantive law Parties to litigation Enforcement options Competition and antitrust Procedure in civil courts Preliminary relief Final remedies Appeal procedure Litigation costs Standard essential patents (SEPs); fair, reasonable, and nondiscriminatory (FRAND) licensing; and antisuit injunctions Practical Law, which is owned by Thomson Reuters, is the world’s leading legal know-how resource for business lawyers, publishing a wide range of guides covering hundreds of jurisdictions and practice areas. The full Thailand overview from the Patent Litigation Global Guide can be accessed on the Practical Law website.

The enactment of Thailand’s Narcotics Code, effective December 10, 2021, marked a key milestone in promoting the commercial applications of cannabis (both marijuana and hemp) and kratom as economic plants—with subsequent regulatory developments continuing this push. For many decades, cannabis and kratom were classified as category 5 narcotics under the Narcotics Act. However, a movement for the legalization of cannabis and kratom developed over time. First, the legalization of marijuana (Cannabis indica) for medical purposes became effective on February 19, 2019, as prescribed in Amendment No. 7 of the Narcotics Act. Kratom has also been effectively decriminalized (covering consumption, production, disposal, and possession for any purpose) since August 24, 2021, as prescribed in Amendment No. 8 of the Narcotics Act. The laws governing narcotic and psychotropic substances in Thailand have now taken a significant step forward with the passage of the Narcotics Code, which is intended to be a comprehensive law covering all narcotics and psychotropic substances in Thailand. Most recently, the Ministry of Public Health announced in the Government Gazette on February 2, 2022, that only cannabis extract (both marijuana and hemp) with THC of more than 0.2% by weight will be classified as a category 5 narcotic. This means that seeds, cannabis plants, and inflorescences, if harvested in Thailand, have been removed from the list of category 5 narcotics. Although the changes to Thailand’s narcotics regulations for cannabis and kratom are intricate, both cannabis and kratom have become a topical issue for farmers and related industries. The plants are new cash crops and have attracted widespread public interest. Currently, we can see fresh kratom leaves and fresh cannabis leaves sold in the market. Unlike products with cannabis derivatives, kratom-based products are not yet available in the Thai market. Although there is an opportunity for developing kratom-based products as energy drinks,

On February 14, 2022, Thailand’s Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) announced a public hearing period on proposed advertising regulations for digital asset businesses. The public hearing period is now open for general comments until March 15, 2022. In the announcement, the SEC expressed their intention to provide clear digital asset advertising principles that conform to regulations in other countries, such as Singapore, the UK, and Japan. The SEC, in a meeting on February 3, agreed that the principles to be developed should apply to all digital asset businesses operating in Thailand. During the public hearing period, any interested parties may comment on the SEC’s proposed principles, which include the following key points: Advertisements that educate, inform, or give facts about digital assets, investments or services, or that provide an overall picture of digital assets, must not exaggerate, distort, or conceal information, or otherwise mislead consumers. In addition, advertisements that refer to customer numbers must only indicate the number of customers who have received approval to open an account and who are ready to use the service. Advertisements must be clear and appropriate, provide a warning on investment risks, and include clear and noticeable SEC-mandated statements in the font size stipulated by the SEC. Advertisements that present positive information or suggest an opportunity to receive returns must provide a balanced view that also discloses negative information or states investment risks. Advertisements relating to cryptocurrencies can only be made via a business operator’s official channels (e.g., the operator’s website, app, or other official online channel), and cryptocurrency cannot be advertised in public areas (e.g., billboards, public transportation, websites, newspapers and periodicals, etc.). However, advertisements for the services of a digital assets business can still be made in public areas and other channels. For example, this can be understood as meaning that an exchange can advertise in public

The sale of counterfeit goods online is as damaging to government efforts and consumer safety as it is to the reputation of the e-commerce platforms and brand owners involved. In this guest piece, Andy Chua, senior vice president of the IP Rights Protection Team at e-commerce giant Lazada, joins Tilleke & Gibbins’ Suebsiri Taweepon and Ploynapa Julagasigorn to discuss how stakeholders can work together to combat the growing threat of counterfeits online – with recent efforts in Thailand a prime example of effective action. This article, which was first published in World Trademark Review, is the second in a two-part series about trademark enforcement against online counterfeits.   Technological developments, government policy and the covid-19 pandemic have brought about significant changes to the lifestyle and behaviour of ordinary consumers. Shopping increasingly takes place on e-commerce platforms as people become more familiar with online transactions, encouraging many sellers to turn their focus to online platforms. While this shift to online retail has brought benefits for many, it has also provided additional ways for sellers of counterfeit goods to peddle their wares. The sale of counterfeit goods online tarnishes the reputation of e-commerce platforms among users, compromises consumer trust in brand owners’ products and undermines public authorities’ efforts in enforcing anti-counterfeiting policies. This dynamic problem cannot be resolved by a single entity alone. Instead, all stakeholders need to work together to amplify their efforts in consumer and brand protection. Collaborating against counterfeits in Thailand We see such collaborations between stakeholders in regions such as Thailand, where the Department of Intellectual Property (DIP) has signed a memorandum of understanding (MOU) with various parties that are committed to combatting the spread of counterfeit products online. The inaugural signing ceremony for the MOU was held on 11 January 2021, with 20 initial signatories drawn from the public sector (eg,

On December 30, 2021, Vietnam’s Ministry of Science and Technology (MOST) issued Decree No. 126/2021/ND-CP (Decree 126) amending several provisions of Decree No. 99/2013/ND-CP of the government dated August 29, 2013 (Decree 99), which is the primary legislation on the sanctioning of administrative violations in industrial property. Decree 126 took near-immediate effect with the new year on January 1, 2022. While the new decree offers some clear improvements that will help enforcement authorities and practitioners to deal with the infringement of industrial property rights, it has some notable shortcomings compared to a draft version of the decree that was circulated in mid-2021 Key Changes in Decree 126 While Decree 126 retains most of the regulations in Decree 99, it introduces some significant changes such as expanding the scope of regulation, increasing the level of administrative fines, and providing more specific details on violations as well as remedies. First, Decree 126 has expanded the scope of its coverage under Article 1, and added a new sub-article explicitly listing the entities that are subject to administrative sanctions, such as companies, IP agencies, and IP examiners. This new provision allows the enforcement authorities to easily detect and apply sanctions to infringers. Decree 126 has also expanded the seizure authority in many provisions. Under the previous regulations, the authorities could only confiscate material evidence and means used in the commission of administrative violations when the total value of such materials did not exceed the amount of the fine for the violation. Under Decree 126, the total value of confiscated materials may be up to twice the set fine amount. This should have a noticeable impact on enforcement efforts. While some of the provisions in Decree 99 are somewhat vague and, as a result, difficult to apply, Decree 126 has made an improvement by setting forth clearer and more specific

Cambodia, Laos, Myanmar, and Vietnam present attractive options for foreign direct investment (FDI). As all of these countries look toward the end of the COVID-19 pandemic, FDI will play an important part in their continued economic development. Specialists from Tilleke & Gibbins in these countries have written chapters in the Foreign Investment Review 2022, published by Lexology Getting the Deal Through, about the framework for FDI in each jurisdiction to provide investors and entrepreneurs with clear guidance for their business operations in Southeast Asia. Specifically, the chapters cover the following topics: Law and Policy: Government policies and practices, main laws and their scope of application (including details on investment promotional measures), definitions, rules for state-owned enterprises and sovereign wealth funds, relevant authorities and oversight, and national interest provisions. Procedure: Jurisdictional thresholds, national interest clearance, securing approval, the review process for competition clearance and associated penalties, involvement of authorities, facilitation of clearance, and post-closing regulatory powers. Substantive assessment: Substantive tests for clearance, authorities’ consultation with other countries and other relevant parties, transactional prohibitions and objections, mitigating arrangements and challenges to a decision, and protection of confidential information. Recent cases, updates, and trends: Relevant recent case law, key recent and ongoing developments. A PDF of each chapter is available on Tilleke & Gibbins’ individual pages for the Cambodia, Laos, Myanmar, and Vietnam chapters of Foreign Investment Review 2022. To browse the full guide for all 29 jurisdictions, please visit the Getting the Deal Through website.