You are using an outdated browser and your browsing experience will not be optimal. Please update to the latest version of Microsoft Edge, Google Chrome or Mozilla Firefox. Install Microsoft Edge

February 4, 2015

Applying Preliminary Injunctions in IP Lawsuits in Vietnam

Subscribe to Updates
Managing Intellectual Property

In commercial lawsuits in general, and IP lawsuits in particular, the ability of rights holders to access one or more forms of injunctive relief is of utmost importance. The availability and effectiveness of preliminary injunctions can show to some extent the maturity and effectiveness of the enforcement system. For such reasons, a correct understanding of the applicability of preliminary injunctions in Vietnam is of practical use.

More Options

First of all, it is necessary to clarify that at present in Vietnam, the most popular forms of IPR enforcement are administrative and border control measures rather than civil measures. However, preliminary injunctions, which are specified in the Law on Intellectual Property (“IP Law”) and the Civil Procedure Code, are only applied in the process of a civil lawsuit in the courts.

The grounds for the application of preliminary injunctions in IP lawsuits are stipulated in Articles 206 to 210 of the IP Law. When the IP Law was promulgated in 2005, it was considered a step forward as it was the first time the law contained any provisions on IP enforcement. The grounds for the application of preliminary injunctions in general are specified in Articles 99 to 126, Chapter VIII of the 2004 Civil Procedure Code (as amended in 2011).

The earliest that a preliminary injunction can be requested is at the time of lodging a civil complaint (this can perhaps be understood as right at the time of filing). The preliminary injunction will only be considered if the rights holder can provide evidence demonstrating one of the following: (1) there is a threat of irreparable damage; (2) there is a threat of dispersal or destruction of suspected infringing goods and related evidence if they are not protected in time. The preliminary injunction by its nature may be applied ex parte  before the court hears the opinions of the party subject to such preliminary injunction. However, in practice, in considering the request for a preliminary injunction, the judge may invite the parties for a meeting to debate the application of such measure.

The specific preliminary injunctions that can be applied are seizure; sealing/freezing; prohibition of changing status; prohibition of moving; prohibition of transferring ownership and other measures which are not specified in the IP Law but in the Civil Procedure Code. In an actual 2009 case, the People’s Court of Thanh Hoa Province in a lawsuit on patent and industrial design between the plaintiff, Cong ty TNHH Thanh Dong, and the defendant, Ninh Ngoc Thanh, applied the preliminary injunction of a “ban on manufacturing and doing business” in infringing goods, which is not intrinsically specified in the IP Law but had a basis in the Civil Procedure Code (Decision No. 28/2009/QD-BPKCTT dated 14 April 2009).

When requesting the application of preliminary injunctions, the requestor may be required to carry out security measures by paying an amount equal to 20% of the value of goods subject to the preliminary injunction, or at least VND 20 million (approximately USD 950) if the value of such goods cannot be easily determined. It is further explained that, depending on the assessment of the judge in charge of the lawsuit, the specific amount may be higher, but may not be less than VND 20 million. However, it should be noted that not every request for a preliminary injunction will necessitate security measures such as payment. For some preliminary injunctions, the law stipulates that security measures are not required. Therefore, results may not always be as expected, or consistent.

Invisible Obstacles

Although the legal regulations are rather clear, reality presents a completely contrasting picture. There are no official annual statistics on how many orders of preliminary injunctions have been issued by the courts but it is likely that the number is very low, or almost zero, simply because the annual number of IP cases resolved in court is very low, and among the cases settled in court, the number of cases requesting preliminary injunctions is also very low and the number of orders of preliminary injunctions which are approved is even lower.

Operating practice also shows the number of orders of preliminary injunctions is very low because of the psychological barriers coming from the judges’ excessive caution as well as pressures from many sides in the process of considering whether or not to apply the preliminary injunction.

Download Full Article
Related Professionals

Practices

Dispute Resolution and Litigation

Intellectual Property

Location

RELATED INSIGHTS​ 

August 20, 2026
Vietnam’s Law on Bankruptcy and Rehabilitation No. 142/2025/QH15, passed by the National Assembly on December 11, 2025, does something many regional counterparts do not yet attempt: it instructs parties and arbitral tribunals on exactly what happens to an arbitration once a debtor becomes insolvent. Together with the Law on Commercial Arbitration No. 54/2010/QH12, the new law improves upon what used to be an uncertain area of practice, now providing an explicit, mandatory sequence of procedures. Suspension and Termination of Arbitration Proceedings Under article 40(2) of the law, once a Vietnamese court accepts a bankruptcy petition, any arbitration that concerns the debtor’s financial obligations must be temporarily suspended as soon as the tribunal receives the court’s notification. If the court subsequently issues a decision commencing bankruptcy proceedings, article 59(2) takes a further step: the suspended arbitration is terminated outright, and the underlying case file is transferred to the court handling the insolvency for resolution. The two provisions work as a sequence: first suspension, then termination and transfer, rather than as independent triggers. Meanwhile, article 60(4) reinforces this effect by vesting the bankruptcy court with exclusive jurisdiction over all claims against the debtor from the date the petition is accepted. Notably, this mechanism operates automatically, without the need for the insolvency court to issue a separate anti-arbitration order. The tribunal simply suspends or terminates the proceeding by operation of law once notified; however, Vietnamese law currently provides no procedure by which a party can apply to the insolvency court for permission to continue the arbitration despite the statutory effect. Practitioners with a Vietnamese counterparty in arbitration should treat notification of a bankruptcy filing as something to flag to the tribunal immediately since continuing to arbitrate a claim that has become subject to article 40(2) or 59(2) risks producing an award vulnerable
Read More
August 20, 2026
Thai law contains no provision that speaks directly to what happens to an arbitration when one of the parties becomes insolvent. The interaction between arbitration and insolvency is derived instead from the general operation of two separately drafted laws: the Bankruptcy Act B.E. 2483 (1940) and the Arbitration Act B.E. 2545 (2002). Because Thai courts have had few opportunities to interpret how these two statutes apply together, the practical answer to many questions, such as who represents an insolvent party in arbitration, whether an award will be enforced, and what happens to a foreign proceeding, depends on inference from general principles of insolvency, arbitration, and procedural law rather than on settled rules. Liquidation and Restructuring The Bankruptcy Act governs both liquidation, which winds up a debtor’s affairs, and restructuring (rehabilitation), which aims to preserve a business. The consequences for arbitration differ accordingly. In liquidation, the debtor’s assets vest in the official receiver, who alone can conduct or continue any arbitration affecting the estate; the debtor loses the authority to act on its own behalf. In restructuring, the plan preparer or administrator takes over that role, but there is more room for the debtor to remain involved, since the objective of rehabilitation is to keep the business operational. Restructuring carries an automatic stay that takes effect once the Bankruptcy Court accepts the restructuring petition. This stay can halt an arbitration regardless of where it is seated. In contrast, liquidation does not work through a stay; instead, the debtor’s loss of authority over its own assets and disputes is what constrains the arbitration. Neither proceeding provides a party a formal route to apply for permission to continue arbitrating—the Bankruptcy Act contains no such mechanism—though in restructuring cases the Bankruptcy Court may allow proceedings to continue where doing so will not prejudice
Read More
August 20, 2026
As part of its membership in Lex Mundi, Tilleke & Gibbins has released the latest edition of its Guide to Doing Business in Thailand, providing an overview of the legal, regulatory, and commercial considerations for companies establishing or expanding operations in Thailand. The 2026 edition offers practical insight into the country’s business environment, investment framework, and operational requirements. The guide covers a wide range of topics relevant to foreign and domestic investors, including: Investment incentives and promotion schemes Financial facilities and banking regulations Exchange controls and money transfers Import and export regulations Business structures and incorporation options Requirements for establishing a business Operational and compliance considerations Business cessation and insolvency procedures Employment and labor laws Taxation Immigration and visa requirements Prepared by Tilleke & Gibbins lawyers across multiple practice areas, the publication outlines key aspects of doing business in Thailand, including foreign investment restrictions, regulatory compliance obligations, corporate structures, employment requirements, and recent legal and economic developments affecting investors. The publication forms part of Lex Mundi’s Country Guides series, a global collection of jurisdiction-specific reference materials prepared by member firms around the world. Together, these guides help companies evaluate opportunities, compare regulatory environments, and plan international business activities across multiple markets. The full Guide to Doing Business in Thailand 2026 is available through the button below.
Read More
August 19, 2026
Arbitration clauses and national court jurisdiction have long existed in a delicate equilibrium, and nowhere is that equilibrium tested more often than in the drafting of multitier dispute resolution clauses. Such clauses—requiring negotiation before arbitration—are ubiquitous in international construction contracts, and they frequently employ permissive vocabulary at the arbitration tier. The formulation “either party may submit the dispute to arbitration” is intended to signal that either side is entitled to initiate proceedings. Yet it is periodically seized upon by claimants who prefer national courts, on the theory that “may” preserves a parallel right to litigate. Each apex-court pronouncement on this question is therefore significant for drafting practice and forum predictability. In 2019, the Thai Supreme Court delivered Thailand’s clearest answer to date (Judgment No. 3427/2562). Reversing an appellate court decision, the Supreme Court held that permissive wording at the point of commencement does not dilute the parties’ antecedent agreement to withdraw their disputes from the courts—doing so in regard to an International Chamber of Commerce (ICC) arbitration clause seated in Singapore, a configuration typical of foreign-invested projects in Thailand. This article examines the court’s reasoning, situates the decision within comparative jurisprudence, and draws out its practical lessons for parties and drafters operating in the Thai market. Background of the Dispute The dispute arose from a subcontract for civil engineering and architectural works concluded on September 25, 2014. Clause 19 of the subcontract governed dispute resolution. Clause 19.1 required the parties, at the request of either, to seek to resolve any dispute “in connection with, arising out of, or relating to” the subcontract through mutual consultation within sixty days of written notice. According to clause 19.2.1, if the dispute could not be resolved within that period, “either party may submit the dispute to arbitration,” to be conducted under the ICC
Read More