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

July 6, 2021

Vietnam: New Draft Decree to Amend Administrative Sanctions in IP

Subscribe to Updates

In June 2021, Vietnam’s Ministry of Science and Technology (MOST) issued a new draft decree amending several provisions of Decree No. 99/2013/ND-CP of the government dated August 29, 2013, on the sanctioning of administrative violations in industrial property (the “Draft Decree”). The Draft Decree seeks to address practitioners’ challenges while applying the law, and to facilitate the more streamlined enforcement of administrative sanctions in industrial property. Along with more than 30 other decrees, the Draft Decree is part of the government’s comprehensive plan to ensure all related legislation is in line with the amended Law on Handling Administrative Violations (passed on November 13, 2020) when it takes effect on January 1, 2022.

Key Changes in the Draft Decree

The most visible change in the Draft Decree is the inclusion of export among activities subject to administrative sanctions if goods that infringe industrial property rights (“IPR”) are found. In the past, the enforcement authorities were often reluctant to handle exported goods due to the lack of regulations. MOST’s inclusion reflects consistency with Article 74 of the Law on Customs of 2014, under which IPR holders can request inspection and monitoring or temporary suspension of customs formalities for exported goods that show signs of IPR infringement.

The removal of cross-border transit from all categories of administrative sanctions is another modification influenced by the Law on Customs (Article 73), which excludes transited goods from being subject to suspension of customs formalities.

Under the Draft Decree, the confiscation of raw materials, materials, and means used to manufacture or trade infringing goods is only applied if deliberate and serious violations are committed during the manufacture, export, import, trade, transport, or storage for sale of goods bearing counterfeit marks or geographical indications. Other than that, state authorities may no longer force the additional noncommercial use, re-export, or destruction of such materials when the corresponding infringing goods themselves are forcibly put to use for noncommercial purposes, re-exported, or destroyed.

The Draft Decree alters the scope of sanctions in some other respects. For example, MOST has limited the period of limitation to impose administrative sanctions on IPR violations to two years, and clarified the trigger dates for specific instances. While the Draft Decree clarifies and limits the ability to apply supplemental sanctions and remedies in all categories, its language is still ambiguous as to the level of the violation, in terms of nature and severity, that would trigger these measures.

On the other hand, the Draft Decree expands the seizure authority in many provisions. Under the current regulations, the authorities can only confiscate material evidence and means used in the commission of administrative violations when the total value of such materials does not exceed the set fine amount for the violation. Under the Draft Decree, the total value of confiscated materials may be up to twice the set fine amount.

Some Items Notably Left Unchanged

While the Draft Decree has made significant efforts to clarify provisions on the form and scope of sanctions, it retains largely the same provisions on the handling of sanctions for administrative violations of IPR. Most of the state agencies and personnel authorized to impose sanctions remain the same. The role of the Market Surveillance Department is still confined to handling goods bearing counterfeit marks or geographical indications, and a few other violations such as unfair competition, but only in domestic trade and transport of goods. In other words, patent infringement remains outside the scope of the Market Surveillance Department’s authority. In addition, contrary to their proactive role in the new Law on Handling Administrative Violations, police agencies still assume a secondary role of performing information and evidence discovery for provision to other agencies.

Most importantly, the Draft Decree still has not removed the regulation related to the temporary suspension of dispute settlement while a request for invalidation of an IP subject such as a trademark or patent is pending. Under the current law, if the adverse party submitted a request for invalidation, they can request the authority to temporarily suspend the case until the IP Office issues its final decision on the invalidation. This is an important issue, especially considering violators often take advantage of this regulation as a tactic to continue infringing activities and evade sanctions.

Related Professionals

Practices

Intellectual Property

Location

RELATED INSIGHTS​ 

August 13, 2026
Modern agricultural machinery is no longer purely mechanical but instead technology dependent. Modern tractors, harvesters, and other farm equipment increasingly incorporate embedded software, electronic control units, sensors, and digital diagnostic systems. While such technologies enhance efficiency, productivity, and precision farming, they also affect the manner of equipment repair and maintenance. As a result, farmers and independent repair providers may have little practical choice but to rely on authorized dealers, even for routine maintenance and repairs. Section 36 of Thailand’s Patent Act reflects the principle that the authorized sale of a patented invention usually exhausts the exclusive right of the patent owner over the specific product. This means that upon legal sale of the patented product, it can typically be used or resold without further authorization from the patent holder. This principle is relatively straightforward when applied to traditional mechanical equipment. Ownership of a machine ordinarily carries with it the practical ability to diagnose faults, replace worn parts, and restore the equipment to working order. Modern agricultural machinery, however, increasingly depends on embedded software, proprietary diagnostic systems, firmware updates, and other digital resources that may remain under the control of the manufacturer or patent holder. This tension lies within the “right to repair” debate. In the United States, on July 8, 2026, the Federal Trade Commission and five states announced a settlement with Deere & Company resolving allegations that Deere had unlawfully restricted farmers’ and independent repair providers’ ability to repair their equipment. Under the terms of the settlement, for the next ten years, Deere must provide repair resources, including software capabilities, on terms equivalent to those provided to authorized dealers. The Deere settlement highlights that the nature of ownership is changing, but legal concepts have not kept pace. Traditional patent-law concepts, including patent exhaustion, were developed with physical products
Read More
August 10, 2026
Thailand has finalized its social media KYC (“know your customer”) rules under Notification of the Electronic Transactions Commission on Measures to Prevent Technological Crimes for Social Media Service Providers (No. 2), which was published in the Government Gazette on May 5, 2026, and will take effect on November 1, 2026. While an early draft of the notification proposed requiring social media platforms to arrange identification of every user account, the final notification is significantly more targeted, focusing on paid online advertising and advertiser identity verification. Though the regulatory initiative primarily aims to combat online fraud and technology-related crimes, it also has important consequences for intellectual property enforcement, because the verified platform records that will be generated under the new requirements can help IP rights holders to identify anonymous online infringers. Key Regulatory Mandates The notification requires social media service providers to verify the identity of advertisers before their paid advertisements are published and disseminated in Thailand through social media, regardless of whether the advertising fees come from the advertisers or third parties. Verification of an advertiser is valid for one year, after which verification would have to be performed again before the platform could publish additional paid advertisements from the advertiser. Permitted verification methods are specified under the notification. A platform may verify an advertiser by checking identity evidence and confirming the connection between the advertiser and that identity evidence, with the notification giving facial comparison against certain government-issued identity documents as an example. Alternatively, platforms may verify advertisers through a digital identity verification and authentication system with an identity-proofing assurance level not lower than the level prescribed by Thailand’s Electronic Transactions Commission. The notification further requires platforms to retain only the advertiser’s information necessary to identify the advertiser, beginning from the start of the advertising activity and for
Read More
August 6, 2026
Introduction: A Trademark Paradox in Sustainable Packaging Walk into any Thai supermarket, and the label-free water bottle is no longer a novelty. Thailand’s packaging market, valued at approximately USD 15.68 billion in 2025, is shifting toward minimalist, plastic-light designs as ESG pressures reshape how brands present their products. The country generated roughly 5.68 million tons of plastic waste in 2021, with a recycling rate of only 19 percent, and regulators are now considering rules that would allow label-free bottled water relying on embossing, laser printing, or QR codes instead of wrap-around labels. As packaging itself becomes the brand identifier, a paradox emerges: designs built to say the least often struggle hardest for protection under Thai intellectual property law. The Trademark Barrier: When Shape Is Not Enough Section 7, paragraph 2(10) of the Thai Trademark Act deems a shape distinctive only if it is not the natural form of the goods, is not necessary to achieve a technical result, and does not add value to the goods. The Department of Intellectual Property’s 2022 examination guidelines apply this test conservatively, as the following examples illustrate. A plain water bottle relying on subtle contours to signal its brand is typically read as just another bottle, not a source identifier. Acquired distinctiveness offers a theoretical escape route, but it demands extensive evidence of sales, advertising, and consumer recognition—an especially heavy burden for new entrants whose minimalist packaging has not yet achieved market prominence. The result is a structural bias against precisely the design innovation that sustainability goals are meant to encourage. Design Patents: A Partial, Imperfect Substitute Design patent protection, covering a product’s shape, configuration, or ornamentation, appears to offer an alternative route. In practice, it is constrained by the same forces driving the minimalist trend. Because many brands converge on similar solutions—clear
Read More
August 4, 2026
Intellectual property (IP) protection sometimes hinges on fame and recognition. However, this alone will not always be sufficient to overcome an IP dispute when it involves contractual obligations or registered rights. Below are five cases from around the world that tackle some of the basic issues in IP registration, ownership, commercialization, and enforcement. 1. USA: Taylor Swift Trademark Application Refused Taylor Swift recently filed a trademark application to register “The Life of a Showgirl,” which is the title of her 12th studio album. When examining a trademark application, the examiner considers various factors before deciding whether it should be registered. One of these factors is whether there is a likelihood of confusion (i.e., would a regular consumer mistake the origin of the trademark). In Taylor Swift’s case, the US Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO) decided that that there would be a risk of confusion. This decision was based on the existing registered trademark, “Confessions of a Showgirl,” owned by Maren Wade, which was registered in 2015. The USPTO refused Taylor Swift’s application based on the shared key distinctive element “of a showgirl,” the lack of sufficient distinguishing terms, the marks being used in overlapping markets (entertainment and performances), and because consumers may assume a common commercial source. Maren Wade then filed a lawsuit in California against Taylor Swift and her affiliated companies, arguing that Taylor Swfit’s branding is confusingly similar in structure, wording, and overall commercial impression to her registered mark. She is also drawing on the USPTO’s refusal of Taylor Swift’s application to support her argument of a likelihood of confusion. A judgment has not yet been reached in this case, but it serves as an important reminder of the importance of satisfying the essential elements required for IP registration. 2. Australia: Katy Perry v. Katie Perry In
Read More