On November 23, 2020, the Intellectual Property Office of Vietnam (IP Office) issued Notification No. 13822/TB-SHTT tightening the requirements for

With technological advancements, business operators are able to access more varieties of data than ever before, and are able to use that data to assess the terms on which loans are provided. This means that they can provide services to consumers more efficiently and with lower operating costs. More importantly, however, it allows them to provide financial services to a broader range of consumers who would otherwise not be able to access vital funds. To facilitate this, on September 15, 2020, the Bank of Thailand (BOT) introduced a new type of personal loan—the digital personal loan—under BOT Circular Re: Rules, Procedures and Conditions for the Undertaking of Digital Personal Loan Business. Sometimes known as “quick loans” or “easy loans” in other jurisdictions, this new type of loan instrument is intended to promote Under the circular, a digital personal loan is defined as a personal loan for which business operators utilize digital technology and alternative data (e.g., utility and mobile phone bill payment records) to assess the borrower’s ability and willingness to repay. The digital personal loans do not include loans for which car registration is used as collateral. The key requirements for undertaking a digital personal loan business are as follows: Business operators are expected to use technology and alternative data to determine the customer’s risk profile, based on their ability or willingness to repay. The alternative data that is used must be from a trusted source and use a sensible hypothesis in assessing the customer’s credit profile. Such business operators may comply with the BOT’s information-based lending guidelines. Business operators must use electronic channels for both the provision and repayment of the loans. This may include disbursing and repaying by bank transfer, direct debit, or e-money to create a digital footprint in the financial sector for the customers. Business operators must disclose relevant

Thailand’s legal framework for preventing transactions that are deliberately designed to conceal the unlawful origin of funds is primarily contained within the Anti-Money Laundering Act B.E. 2542 (1999) (AMLA), as amended. As international money laundering practices evolve and emerge over time, prevention measures must evolve with them. Therefore the Financial Action Task Force (FATF) recently recommended amendments to the AMLA, along with the Counter Terrorism and Proliferation of Weapons of Mass Destruction Financing Act B.E. 2559 (2016) (CFTA), in order to be consistent with the latest international standards. The amendments passed through the public hearing stage on June 15, 2020, and the laws will now continue through the cabinet and parliament. Key Draft Amendments to the AMLA The definition of “financial institution” is expanded to include operators of many financial technology services, including: asset management and digital asset businesses; trustees in capital market trusts; derivatives businesses; authorized juristic persons under foreign exchange controls; personal loan businesses; nano- and pico-finance businesses; peer-to-peer lending businesses; crowdfunding platforms; regulated e-payment systems and services; non-bank credit card service providers; and additional businesses related to financial services or financial technology services at risk for money laundering (by further announcement in ministerial regulations). The definition of “professions” (formerly known as “section-16 professions”) is expanded to include additional occupations and businesses, such as accounting, auditing, auto trading and leasing, legal consulting, and additional professions at risk for money laundering (by further announcement in ministerial regulations). For cash transactions exceeding the prescribed threshold, parties in the listed professions are assigned recordkeeping duties in addition to their current reporting duties. The authority and power of the Anti-Money Laundering Office are expanded to include acting as a central financial intelligence agency to regulate, check, and rate the operations of companies and branches both within and outside of Thailand. Key Draft Amendments to the CFTA A channel is established for section-6 designated persons (i.e. people who have been

It is strongly recommended that entities which are considering entering the Thai cannabis market file applications to protect their marks and patents in Thailand as soon as possible. Cannabis Trademarks Thailand operates under a first-to-file trademark system. The Thai Trademark Office has verbally confirmed that trademark applications which include goods or services relating to medical cannabis are registrable. That being said, recent developments indicate that the Trademark Office will require applicants who file specifically for medical cannabis goods or services to submit proof that the applicant has permission to produce drugs containing cannabis from the Thai Food and Drug Administration. In addition, the Trademark Office is taking a conservative approach when it comes to the words and images that are registrable as trademarks. The Trademark Office has advised that words or images relating to cannabis will be refused based on Section 8(9) of the Thai Trademark Act, which states that a trademark that is contrary to public order, morality, or public policy shall not be registered. Given the above, applicants should carefully consider the trademarks that they would like to protect in Thailand to avoid unnecessary refusals. If the applicant does not yet have such permission from the Thai Food and Drug Administration, it is recommended that the applicant’s mark make no reference to cannabis, either visually or verbally, and that the list of goods and/or services does not specifically refer to cannabis or related terminology. In short, we urge applicants to enter into the Thai market early, with carefully-chosen marks and deliberately-worded descriptions of goods and/or services. Cannabis Patents Cannabis-related products and processes are now eligible for patent protection in Thailand, with some restrictions. A cannabis plant, including its parts and crude extract, are considered mere products of nature and thus not patentable. Another important restriction applies to an invention that is contrary to the

Thailand’s Department of Intellectual Property (DIP) periodically holds public ceremonies for the destruction of counterfeit products in order to raise awareness of intellectual property rights infringement and deter the public from violating these rights by buying or selling counterfeit goods. Normally these events are open-air, community events, open to the general public. However, this year, as a precautionary measure against the risk of COVID-19, the DIP held its first destruction ceremony via real-time video stream, with the DIP in Greater Bangkok coordinating with destruction sites in Saraburi and Chon Buri Provinces. The destruction ceremony was held on September 9, 2020, with the DIP convening a press conference at the Office of the Permanent Secretary, Ministry of Commerce, located in Nonthaburi (part of the Bangkok Metropolitan Area). While only a limited number of people were permitted to attend in person, the DIP allowed people to join the ceremony via online videoconferencing. At the event, Mr. Thosapone Dangsuputra, director-general of the DIP, announced that a total of 785,376 pirated  and counterfeit items, worth around THB 354 million (USD 11.7 million), had been seized through the persistent efforts of the government—in particular the Royal Thai Police, the Customs Department, and the Department of Special Investigations. These infringing goods, all of which were destroyed in the event, related to concluded cases in the Bangkok Metropolitan Area and surrounding provinces. Deputy minister of commerce Mr. Weerasak Wangsuphakitkosol presided over the destruction ceremony and delivered an opening speech, followed by a demonstration of the destruction process for both in-person attendees and those joining the ceremony virtually. The infringing products were sent for destruction using one of two methods. Pirated and counterfeit goods such as clothes, bags, and other combustible items were incinerated at the facility in Saraburi Province, while products that could not be burned or recycled, including car

It is not unusual for brand owners to take a closer look at the Thai market for their products only to find that a third party has already applied for registration of their trademark. Brand owners who face this situation usually become aware of it when they consider entering the Thai market after their brand has already become famous and successful elsewhere. Well-known marks are often usurped when a bad-faith applicant intentionally registers a trademark to benefit from the goodwill and reputation associated with that trademark. As Thailand is a first-to-file system for trademark registration, supplying proof of intention to use is not a requirement for registration. Thus, if a legitimate brand owner has never registered their trademark in Thailand, a bad-faith applicant might take advantage of this opening to file another person’s trademark in his or her own name. Overlooking the early securing of trademark rights in Thailand can lead to complex problems, even when brand owners have a relationship with a distributor in Thailand. The problem usually comes to light when a brand owner seeks to end their relationship with one distributor and start a business relationship with a new partner. In some cases, brand owners are blindsided when they learn that the previous distributor had surreptitiously filed for registration of the trademark in the distributor’s own name without alerting them—meaning that the former distributor now holds exclusive rights over the use of the trademark in Thailand. After finding out about a bad-faith trademark registration, many brand owners seek to cancel the Thai registration of the trademark to which they have better rights than the registrant. The Trademark Act provides several mechanisms that brand owners can rely on to pursue cancellation of trademark’s registration; however, none of the law’s provisions clearly state the possibility of canceling a trademark registered

Vietnam’s efforts against the outbreak of COVID-19 in the country have been largely successful, and despite two distinct spikes of local transmission, in both cases the spread was halted relatively quickly. As these complications from the COVID-19 pandemic have been playing out in Vietnam throughout 2020, it became clear that effective and strong enforcement of healthcare regulations, especially those related to disease control, was crucial. On September 28, 2020, the government of Vietnam took action on this by issuing Decree No. 117/2020/ND-CP (“Decree 117”), which provides penalties for administrative violations in the healthcare sector. Some provisions of Decree 117—mostly those related to disease control and epidemic situations—took effect immediately, with the remainder taking effect on November 15, 2020. The decree, which was based on a draft proposed by the Ministry of Health, replaced Decree No. 176/2013/ND-CP on the same matter. The main administrative penalties under Decree 117 are reprimands and fines. Depending on the severity of the violation, violators may also be subject to additional penalties such as suspension of a certificate of eligibility for pharmaceutical business (CEPB), a license for healthcare operation, or other licenses and practicing certificates for up to 24 months; confiscation of illegal items; suspension of operations for up to 24 months; or deportation. Furthermore, remedial measures such as forced return of illegal earnings, compulsory quarantine and medical examination, public correction, or compulsory payment of treatment fees may also be applied. Some key highlights of Decree 117 are discussed below. In relation to disease control, the maximum fine for failure to comply with quarantine is doubled to VND 20 million (USD 855) for infected people of type-A contagious diseases, and VND 10 million (USD 427) for those who are not infected but are asked to quarantine. Failure to declare one’s contagious disease to a doctor could be subject to

COVID-19 has had an economic impact across a wide range of industries, including hospitality, airlines, automotive, construction, logistics, and more, and many performance obligations on contractual parties have been rendered impossible. However, many others—while certainly more difficult, complicated, or expensive—remain literally or legally possible. While COVID-19 will continue to have a devastating impact on health and economies globally, governments—including Thailand’s—have implemented preventive and responsive measures in an attempt to mitigate that impact. On May 24, 2020, for example, the Committee for Government Procurement and Supplies Management circulated guidelines for the administration of contracts between private parties during the COVID-19 pandemic, announcing that the COVID-19 pandemic qualifies as a force majeure event. The specific period of force majeure in Thailand began with the government’s announcement of a state of emergency on March 26, 2020. See the previous article for more details on this measure. As market circumstances continue to evolve along with the impact of COVID-19, companies in Thailand are paying special attention to the role force majeure plays in navigating the various legal implications of commercial contracts during the outbreak. Force Majeure Clauses under Thai Law    In the midst of the COVID-19 pandemic many are wondering whether parties will be excused from performance under the doctrine of force majeure, by which parties can be excused from contractual performance that becomes impossible due to an extraordinary or exogenous event. For contracts that have no force majeure clause, the definition of force majeure under section 8 of the Civil and Commercial Code will automatically be applied. However, parties may negotiate a force majeure clause and establish a course of action to follow in such events of force majeure. This clause can also pertain to things like excuse of liability, right to terminate or revise the contract, and distribution of damages due to force majeure. Every force majeure clause should be considered and interpreted separately and in light