Vietnam has become a big player in the global fashion industry. Garments made in Vietnam now appear all over the world, especially in the U.S. and the EU. In this value chain, however, Vietnamese companies usually play the role of garment processors, fulfilling the orders of big brands for immediate export purposes. While the goods bearing the registered marks are made in Vietnam by local companies, the brand owners are often overseas or global corporations. As a brand owner can lose protection of its mark in Vietnam due to non-use, this situation leads to the question of what constitutes “use” of a mark when the mark-bearing goods are processed for export only, and not sold in the Vietnam market. Article 124.5 of Vietnam’s IP Law provides that: Use of a mark means the performance of the following acts: Affixing the protected mark on goods, packaging, business facilities, means of service provision, or transaction documents in business activities; Circulating, offering, advertising, or stocking for sale goods bearing the protected mark; Importing goods or services bearing the protected mark. At first glance, the above provision seems quite clear. While importing goods appears on the list, exporting goods is conspicuously absent, and therefore it is not an act of use. However, it is also clear that for the purpose of exporting, a product should go through a manufacturing or processing stage in which the mark will be physically affixed to the product or its packaging. For fashion goods, this could be in the form of a removable tag or package, a tag sewn onto the item, or a fundamental part of the garment’s design (such as a T-shirt emblazoned with a brand name, or a shoe featuring a distinctive logo). Then, the question becomes whether this act of affixing the mark on the goods or packaging in the manufacturing process

Myanmar, which is now more than halfway through the scheduled soft opening of its Intellectual Property Department (IPD) under the country’s New Trademark Law, is well on its way to the full realization of its plans for a modernized IP system operating on par with international standards. As the first of four IP-related laws passed in 2019, the ongoing implementation of the Trademark Law affects definitions of trademarks and types of trademark applications. Section 2 of the law defines a “mark” as “either a visible sign or a combination of signs, including one’s own names, alphabet letters, numbers, graphical representations, or compositions of color and tints to distinguish the goods or services of an enterprise from those of another enterprise. Within this scope, trademark, service mark, collective mark and certification mark are also included. The ‘series mark’ consists of a number of these marks, which resemble each other on the material particulars, but may differ in some aspect—for instance, a mark with different color variations. However, there is no specific definition of what makes up a series mark in the Trademark Law itself, and there has also not yet been any clear guidance on the issue. The Trademark Rules, which set the guidelines for the trademark application and registration procedures, are still in the process of being finalized, are expected to include information on the possibility of filing series marks under the soft opening period. On December 29 2020, the IPD held a workshop to clarify various issues, and informed attendees that applications containing more than one trademark in a single application are prohibited under the new system. However, this seemed to contradict the Ministry of Commerce’s Order No. 63/2020, which had declared that the refiling of old marks under the soft opening period of the new Trademark Law had to be

The Office of Insurance Commission (OIC) is seeking public comments on their recently released draft guidelines on Thailand’s insurance regulatory sandbox. Once enacted, the draft notification will replace the existing OIC insurance regulatory sandbox notification, aiming to broaden the OIC’s authority in order to erase difficulties in the project approval process that have arisen under the current notification. One major change included in this draft notification is that business operators are no longer allowed to conduct “own sandbox” testing. Unlike the notification currently in effect, the new draft notification also does not specify the criteria and procedures for a business operator to apply for a temporary allowance of non-compliance with non-material, test-obstructing requirements in a notification or order from the OIC or the registrar. Participants Eligible participants in the insurance regulatory sandbox—which include life and non-life insurance companies, life and non-life brokers, and other types of business operators with expertise in technology—must have appropriate capital, systems, personnel, and experience for the planned provision of service. Participants in the sandbox must establish measures to ensure that insured parties will receive sufficient information in relation to the project, and a remedial plan must be in place in case of damage arising from errors connected to the project. These measures are similar to those in the existing OIC notification, which requires that such measures must at least cover consumer protection, risk management, reporting obligations, and compliance with applicable laws. Project Requirements The draft notification reduces the number of eligible sandbox project types allowed under the existing OIC notification. When the draft notification is enacted, projects that risk regulatory incompliance, and projects that may adversely affect consumers, financial stability, or trust in an insurance company or the industry as a whole, will no longer be allowed to participate in the insurance regulatory sandbox. In addition, applicants to participate in the

Background On May 8, 2020, the Lao Ministry of Justice published the Decree on Consumer Protection regarding Financial Services No. 225/GOV, dated April 6, 2020, in its online Official Gazette. The decree was drafted by the Bank of the Lao PDR (BOL), which is the central bank in Laos. In addition to supplementing the country’s guidelines on commercial banks’ obligations to their customers, the new decree bolsters the country’s consumer protection regulatory regime under its primary relevant piece of legislation, the Law on Consumer Protection No. 02/NA, dated June 30, 2010. Scope of Application The decree was drafted to elaborate on Article 57 of the Law on Commercial Banks No. 56/NA, dated December 7, 2018, which requires commercial banks to devise clear procedures for receiving and resolving consumer complaints. Besides its application to commercial banks as defined by the law, the decree also applies to a wide range of service providers, including microfinance institutions (deposit-taking or otherwise), deposit and savings cooperatives, leasing companies, pawnshops, and providers proposing other types of financial services under the supervision of the BOL (referred to collectively as “service providers”). Likewise, the decree addresses a spectrum of financial services, including: Monetary deposits and issuance of deposit certificates; Provision of credit; Card services; Hire-purchase and leasing; Mortgages; Payment services; Buying and selling currencies; and, Other services authorized by the BOL, which covers all types of banking services in Laos. Fee Restrictions and Disclosure Requirements for Financial Services The decree requires service providers to set a written policy determining the appropriateness of the selected product, official fee, service fee, representation fee, interests rate, and other fees, in accordance with the relevant law and regulations (if any), and to document the justification for the price of each product. Service providers are also required to advise consumers on financial services through supporting documents and materials. Though the decree provides specific requirements for different

Thailand’s latest draft amendment of the Copyright Act was approved by the cabinet in late 2020 and is currently being reviewed by the parliament. Although the draft is still in the legislative process, copyright owners, legal practitioners, and most importantly, internet service providers (ISPs) should be aware of some major revisions reflected in the draft in order to prepare properly prior to the actual implementation of the law, which is very likely to be within 2021. The draft of the new law—if enacted without major additional changes—would both adjust protection terms of some copyright works and introduce a robust regime for online copyright protection. Some of the major updates in the draft are highlighted below. Extending the Term of Protection for Photographic Works The draft extends the term of protection for photographic works, which under the current law is 50 years after a work’s creation or first publication, to be the lifetime of the author plus 50 years after the death of the author. This lengthening of the term would put Thailand’s protection for photographic works in line with the WIPO Copyright Treaty, which aims to enhance protection of copyright works in the digital age. ISP Safe Harbors and Notice-and-Takedown System Section 32/3 of the current Copyright Act provides injunctive relief against online infringement for copyright owners, together with an exemption from infringement liability for ISPs. The measure introduced by this section has proved ineffective since its implementation in 2015. The new draft therefore removes this measure and includes a new section on safe harbor for the ISPs so that they are not held liable for copyright infringement committed by their users, as long as they comply with the new measures, including implementation of the notice-and-takedown system. In laying out these new measures, the draft redefines both “service providers” and “users” to fit the new

E-commerce platforms have become some of the most significant marketplaces in Thailand, with millions of daily business transactions and huge numbers of online users. The increasing number of online shops operating on e-commerce platforms requires new techniques to be employed in online intellectual property (IP) rights infringement cases. Both the private sector and the government have developed tools to enhance online IP enforcement, some using the latest legal technologies and artificial intelligence (AI). Many legal technologies and AI operations are still nascent and typically do not yet offer the best approach for online IP rights enforcement. For example, AI and other technologies available today are still unable to consistently differentiate between original and counterfeit products from the images and information displayed on the E-commerce platforms and the internet. Therefore, some of the most effective measures for online IP enforcement still involve manual online searches by experienced local investigators with deep understanding of the behaviors of local users (both sellers and buyers) and the ability to link relevant information across online platforms. Acknowledging this, Thailand’s Department of Intellectual Property (DIP), as the governmental office responsible for IP-related matters in Thailand, has initiated its new Memorandum of Understanding on the Protection of Intellectual Property Rights on the Internet. This memorandum of understanding (MOU) does not create additional rights for IP owners, but acts as a mechanism to gather all the relevant stakeholders to address issues related to online IP infringement in a unified, mutually agreeable manner. The signatories of the MOU fall into four categories: Governmental authorities: DIP, Department of Business Development, and Department of International Trade Promotion E-commerce platform operators: Lazada, Shopee, and JD Central (the most popular e-commerce platforms in Thailand) IP rights holders: Particularly including trademark owners facing ongoing counterfeiting problems in Thailand Law firms (including Tilleke & Gibbins) Although the MOU is not legally binding

A new regulation in Laos provides significant practical clarity on procedures and contingencies related to patents and petty patents. Published in the Official Gazette on December 23, the Decision on Patents and Petty Patents no.1714/MOST, dated December 15, 2020, is the latest step in Laos’ ongoing efforts to improve the utility of its system for patents and petty patents. Laos has steadily built up its patent regime since the early 2000s by issuing laws and regulations defining the key elements. These continued to be updated after Laos joined the Patent Cooperation Treaty in 2006, and in recent years, various regional and bilateral cooperation has helped accelerate some patent applications. However, even after the amended Law on Intellectual Property took effect in June 2018, the process could still be prohibitively time-consuming. The new decision, which replaces a 2012 decision on the same topic, addresses this by clarifying and simplifying many key points, the most significant of which are detailed below. Priority date. Applications filed under the PCT have a 31-month time limit for entering the national phase, counting from the priority date. This is a small change from the 2012 decision, which set the time limit at 30 months. Submission of original documents. If the pre-filled, unsigned form for the power of attorney (POA) and deed of assignment (DOA) is submitted, scanned copies of the notarized POA and DOA must be submitted within 15 days (down from 60 days under the 2012 decision). However, the original documents must still be submitted within 60 days. International classification. Applicants can ask the Department of Intellectual Property (DIP) to indicate the international class of patent and petty patent applications. If there are amendments to the class, applicants can file an amendment form with the DIP free of charge. International classification was not mentioned in the 2012 decision. Publication timeline.

The COVID-19 pandemic has resulted in a significant increase in the popularity of electronic meetings among businesses across the world, as physical meetings became unfeasible due to government lockdowns and regulations limiting gatherings to limit the risk of further spreading the disease. In Thailand, this turn of events has resulted in the promulgation of a new electronic meeting law to modernize rules that facilitate the convening of corporate entities’ statutory meetings as required under Thai law. Electronic meetings in Thailand have been permitted to some degree since June 27, 2014, when the Announcement of the National Council for Peace and Order No. 74/2557 on Teleconferences through Electronic Means B.E. 2557 (2014) first allowed the practice, subject to various restrictions. However, many companies considered two strict requirements under this announcement to be impractical: at least one-third of the quorum for the electronic meeting had to physically attend the meeting at the designated meeting venue, which implies that no more than two-thirds of the quorum could choose to attend the meeting via electronic means; and all participants of the electronic meeting (whether attending electronically or in person) had to be physically present in Thailand at the time of the meeting, which effectively prohibited overseas participation. New Rules for Electronic Meetings The new electronic meeting law, the Royal Decree on Teleconferences through Electronic Means B.E. 2563 (2020), came into effect on April 19, 2020, replacing the 2014 order and relaxing its most onerous limitations in order to facilitate meetings of directors and shareholders via electronic means during the COVID-19 pandemic. The key relaxations codified by the royal decree include allowing all attendees to attend meetings via electronic means, such as by phone or videoconferencing, from anywhere in the world. Furthermore, there is no longer a physical attendance requirement, and notices (and enclosures) calling a meeting can