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

When Vietnam’s new Law on Enterprises of 2020 (2020 LOE) came into effect on January 1, 2021, the implementing regulations for corporate matters guiding the now-repealed Law on Enterprises of 2014 ceased their effectiveness, per principles under the laws on promulgation of legislative documents. As a result, governmental bodies and enterprises have been awaiting the issuance of new implementing regulations that will apply to the 2020 LOE. The first major guidance arrived on January 4, 2021, when the government issued Decree No. 01/2021/ND-CP on enterprise registration (Decree 01), which replaces Decree No. 78/2015/ND-CP dated September 14, 2015 (Decree 78) on the same matter. This article discusses some notable points of Decree 01 in comparison to Decree 78. Operating Status of Enterprises Decree 01 sets out seven possible legal statuses under which an established enterprise may be classified in its profile on the National Business Registration Portal (NBRP), which is available for public access: Active; Business temporarily suspended; No longer in business at the registered address; Enterprise registration certificate revoked due to decision issued by tax authority; In dissolution process, divided, merged, or acquired; In bankruptcy process; and Dissolved, bankrupt, or ceased to exist. By default, the status of a company is active. The status will be updated to one of the other options in the NBRP when the respective licensing procedures are completed at the provincial Department of Planning and Investment (e.g., for temporary suspension of business or initiation of dissolution process), or according to the decision of the relevant authorities (e.g., for bankruptcy). The previous Decree 78 did not provide detail on the available status options. The common statuses observed on the NBRP before the enactment of Decree 01 were “active,” “business temporarily suspended,” “locked” (akin to the current “in dissolution process”), and “dissolved.” This change will make it easier for a third party to identify the operating status of a

Maintaining positive employee relations is a top concern for virtually all companies. Many companies in Thailand—especially those located in the country’s industrial estates—have labor unions, while others rely on other non-union pathways for attending to the concerns of employees. In all of these cases, the union or collective group of employees also chooses members of the “employee committee” that is charged with fostering good relations and open communications with the employer through regular meetings dedicated to discussion of workplace matters. Companies with a workforce of 50 or more employees need to understand the roles of the employee committee and the specific rights accorded to the committee members, which are different from the rights of the other employees. Besides the obvious benefits that this understanding has for relations with their employees, it is also important if an employer takes disciplinary action against employee committee members, as violation of a committee member’s rights could result in the employer facing criminal penalties. The legal basis for these employee committees is the Labor Relations Act B.E. 2518 (LRA), which stipulates that in any workplace with at least 50 employees, the employees or their labor union of the business establishment is entitled to establish an employee committee. Members are elected (or, in the case of a labor union, appointed) to three-year terms on the committee, with the total number of committee members depending on the size of the workforce, as shown in the table. Membership Requirements Among partially unionized workforces, labor unions are generally given precedence when it comes to control of the committee. If a labor union whose members account for more than 20% of the total employees in a workplace, the union gets to appoint the majority of the employee committee members (e.g., four out of a seven-person committee, five of a nine-person committee, etc.). Moreover,

Like many countries, Thailand requires stamp duty to be paid on the execution of certain legal instruments. A liable person who fails to pay stamp duty on a required instrument can be subject to a maximum surcharge of six times the applicable stamp duty, and an instrument on which stamp duty has not been paid will not be admissible as evidence in civil cases (that is, it will have limited legal weight and enforceability). Before July 2019, there were three methods for paying stamp duty: Affixing adhesive stamps on the instrument (and canceling it by the liable person in order to make sure that the adhesive stamp duty cannot be reused); Having a stamp impressed on the paper instrument; or Filing a prescribed form and paying the duty by cash or cashiers cheque at an area revenue office. In addition to paying the correct amount of stamp duty, the law also requires that stamp duty on certain instruments be paid using a specific prescribed method from the list above. Failure to use the prescribed method would be considered as that the stamp duty not having been paid. For example, a hire-of-work instrument is subject to stamp duty, but if the remuneration stated within the agreement is at least THB 1,000,000 (approximately USD 33,500), the stamp duty must be paid by filing a prescribed form and paying by cash or cashier’s cheque at an area revenue office. Affixing adhesive stamp duty is not allowed in that circumstance. E-Stamp Duty In June 2019, the Revenue Department introduced a fourth method of paying stamp duty, allowing online payments in specific circumstances (e-Stamp Duty). After the launch of the e-Stamp Duty system, the Revenue Department issued a notification (Notification of the Director-General of Revenue concerning Stamp Duty (No. 58)) requiring stamp duty on five instruments that are executed in electronic format

The cannabis plant has fascinated many civilizations, societies, and individuals through the centuries with its unique properties, and many have learned how to benefit from these, finding a variety of therapeutic and industrial uses of the plant that, in turn, enhanced domestic economies worldwide. In Thailand, cannabis plants and their derivatives have been used since ancient times as treatment for many diseases, and the plant forms a key ingredient in many Thai traditional medicinal remedies. However, over the past few decades, cannabis usage was seen to change in a way that became incrementally more abusive, resulting in outright prohibition in almost all countries. Thailand was no exception, and in 1979 the Thai government officially enacted the Narcotics Act forbidding the use of cannabis and listing cannabis plants and their derivatives—most notably marijuana (cannabis with psychoactive properties) and hemp (cannabis with limited or no psychoactive properties)—as category 5 narcotics (i.e., prohibited substances). Despite these restrictions, many Thais continued to use cannabis illegally, and some urged the government to legalize personal and commercial use of cannabis plants and their derivatives. Eventually, some in the Thai government agreed that it was time to consider steps toward legalization, As a result, the government has been taking action to delist cannabis plants from the list of prohibited narcotics since 2018, when a regulation allowed the cultivation of hemp for industrial and non-commercial purposes, such as household cooking and research and development. The next significant step came in February 2019, when the Narcotics Act (No. 7) was amended, legalizing medical marijuana within certain limitations. In national elections the following month, the Bhumjaithai political party, whose election campaign included a pledge to decriminalize and legalize cannabis plants, won substantial support in parts of the country and chose to join the coalition government, with the Bhumjaithai party leader assuming