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

May 16, 2024

Vietnam Issues New Decree on Administrative Sanctions in Industrial Property

Subscribe to Updates

On May 4, 2024, the Vietnamese government issued Decree No. 46/2024/ND-CP (“Decree 46”) amending and supplementing certain articles of Decree No. 99/2013/ND-CP dated August 29, 2013, on administrative sanctions in industrial property, as amended and supplemented in 2021 (“Decree 99”). Decree 46, which will come into force on July 1, 2024, is designed to bring Decree 99 in line with the amended IP Law of 2022.

Some of the notable amendments of Decree 46 are discussed below.

New Infringing Acts

Decree 46 added the following new infringing acts subject to sanctions, which had not been set out in the former decree:

  • Use of patents, utility solutions, layout designs, or industrial designs without paying compensation according to the provisions on temporary rights specified in Article 131 of the amended IP Law.
  • Accepting a trademark license not in the form of a written contract in the case of using the licensed trademark on goods or packaging.
  • Failure to notify clients of costs, charges, and fees related to procedures for establishing and protecting industrial property rights.
  • Deceiving clients in the course of entering into and performing industrial property representative service contracts, but not to the extent of criminal prosecution, or forcing customers to enter into and perform industrial property representative service contracts.

Although these acts are not common occurrences, it is nevertheless important to have clear regulations in order to ensure consistency with the amended IP Law and overcome difficulties and obstacles if such acts are committed in practice.

Amendments and Supplements

Decree 46 adopted amendments and supplements to main sanctions, additional sanctions, and remedial measures, specifically:

  • The monetary fine imposed for violations against trade secrets is VND 50 million to VND 100 million (approx. USD 2,000 – USD 4,000), a large increase compared to the VND 5 million to VND 15 million (approx. USD 200 – USD 600) in the previous decree. This is a recognition of the importance of trade secrets, which cover information acquired from an enterprise’s financial and intellectual investments, and can be crucial to the enterprise’s success.
  • The former additional sanction of “suspension of activities of production or trading in violating goods or services for 1 to 3 months” has been amended to “complete or partial suspension of production, trading, or service activities for 1 to 3 months.” This regulation seems broader and vaguer, as it does not specify that only activities related to violating goods or services are affected, and may trigger confusion with the enforcement authorities.
  • Complete or partial suspension of industrial property representative service activities for 1 to 3 months is imposed on violations of industrial property representative service organizations. Decree 99 only imposed similar sanctions on individuals, not organizations, so this change was absolutely necessary. However, the term “partial suspension” sounds vague as aforementioned.
  • Forcible removal from the Vietnamese territory or forcible re-export is applied to imported or transited goods bearing counterfeit trademarks or geographical indications. Pursuant to the former decree, forcible removal was applied for transited goods infringing industrial property rights while forcible re-export was imposed on goods bearing counterfeit trademarks or geographical indications. Given the new regulation, such remedial measures are no longer imposed for imported and transited lookalikes.
  • The measure of mandatory restoration to original status replaces the measure of mandatory recovery of dispersed exhibits and means of violation found in the former decree. This regulation is rather abstract, and may be difficult to enforce.
  • Forced compensation payment is added as a remedial measure in Decree 46, and applies to the act of using patents, utility solutions, layout designs, and industrial designs without paying compensation as mentioned above.

Temporary Hold on Domain Names

Decree 46 refers to the preventive and security measure of temporarily holding domain names, which  is imposed on the act of possessing or using a domain name that is identical or confusingly similar to another person’s registered trademark, trade name, or geographical indication, which the party does not have the right to use, with malicious intent or to take advantage of the prestige or reputation of the respective trademark, trade name, or geographical indication in order to gain illegal profit.

The authority/agency handling the case will need to cooperate with the Vietnam Internet Network Information Center and the registrar to perform such temporary hold of infringing domain names.

Remedial Measures After Statute of Limitations Expires

Decree 46 also stipulates that when the statute of limitations for administrative sanctions expires, resulting in the enforcement authorities refusing to handle a case, remedial measures can still be imposed. This regulation was not mentioned in Decree 99, but is consistent with the Law on Handling Administrative Violations.

Competence of Police

The competence of the police is extended under Decree 46; specifically, the police are entitled to handle cases connected to the following acts in industrial property assessment activities (activities related to, for example, determining if marks, designs, etc., are infringements):

  • Taking advantage of the role of examiner and assessment activities for personal interests.
  • Deliberately making false assessment conclusions.
  • Modifying, erasing, or committing other acts that falsify assessment documents.
  • Providing untruthful information to relevant agencies during the process of registering for an examination of industrial property assessment profession, requesting industrial property examiner cards, and requesting recognition of industrial property assessment organization.
  • Conducting assessment in cases in which assessment must be refused as prescribed by law.

This extension of the police’s competence seems to be unnecessary, and the police might be reluctant to handle these cases in practice because, with respect to IP infringements, the police normally prefer dealing with counterfeit goods rather than infringing acts connected to paperwork.

From the perspective of IP rights-holders, it would be more beneficial to extend the police’s competence to handling manufacturers of lookalikes. Under prevailing regulations, only the inspectorates of the Ministry of Science and Technology (MOST) or the Departments of Science and Technology (DOST) at the city or provincial level are entitled to handle lookalike cases of local manufacturers. However, MOST is based in Hanoi, and MOST officials infrequently travel to other cities/provinces, while the DOST inspectorates, even in Ho Chi Minh City, tend to have a shortage of manpower for handling IP infringements. Hence, taking action against manufacturers of lookalikes usually does not happen immediately. In addition, MOST and DOST tend to request the manufacturers to attend a meeting in which the authorities explain the laws and request the manufacturers to cease making the lookalikes without conducting any inspections into the manufacturers’ locations and seizing infringing goods. Such settlement has little deterrent effect when no sanctions are imposed on manufacturers. Given this, additional assistance from the police in matters related to manufacturers of lookalikes would be welcome.

Invalidation Matters

Under existing regulations, administrative authorities like MOST have faced numerous challenges in managing IP-related complaints and disputes when the adverse party submits an invalidation request related to the concerned IP subject-matter to the IP Office. This often leads to the suspension of the case due to the pending invalidation, and long delays in the settlement process.

However, under Decree 46, when these situations arise, the competent authority must request clarification from the IP Office on the status of the IP rights, and the IP Office must respond within 10 days of receiving the request. Subsequently, the competent authority will base their decision on whether to continue handling the case on the opinion provided by the IP Office. This should help to greatly speed up the administrative sanctioning process and help curtail ongoing infringement.

Conclusion

Decree 46 is the second amendment to the administrative sanctions in industrial property, and its issuance demonstrates that the Vietnamese government has listened to the opinions of IP practitioners and organizations to further improve the relevant regulations. The new decree includes some needed amendments and supplements; however, some amendments of still remain vague and could be difficult to enforce. Decree 46 takes effect very soon; it will be interesting to see how effectively the amendments are applied in practice in the coming time.

Related Professionals

Practices

Dispute Resolution and Litigation

Intellectual Property

Location

RELATED INSIGHTS​ 

July 27, 2026
Vietnam’s new E-Commerce Law, which took effect on 1 July 2026 along with its implementing Decree No. 248/2026/ND-CP (Decree 248), marks a significant development in the country’s approach to online intellectual property (IP) enforcement, reflecting a clear shift from a reactive model of intermediary liability to one that expects platforms to play a more active role in preventing infringement. From notice-and-takedown to platform responsibility The most significant change introduced by the E-Commerce Law is the transformation of the legal role of e-commerce platforms. The existing safe harbor provisions under the IP Law and the copyright notice-and-takedown regime established by Decree 17/2023/ND-CP (Decree 17) largely required intermediaries to act only after receiving notice of infringement. Once infringing content had been removed, the platform’s legal obligation was generally considered fulfilled. The new legislation adopts a fundamentally different approach. Article 17 of the E-Commerce Law requires intermediary platforms to screen information relating to goods and services before publication in order to prevent listings involving counterfeit or IP-infringing goods, and goods of unknown origin. Rather than relying exclusively on complaints from rights holders, platforms are now expected to implement preventive measures before infringing listings become publicly available. Decree 248 further requires platforms to update keyword filters based on recommendations issued by competent authorities. These filtering mechanisms are intended to prevent prohibited listings from appearing on the platform and represent a further move away from a purely complaint-driven enforcement model. The legislation also introduces Vietnam’s first statutory stay-down obligation. Under the E-Commerce Law and Decree 248, major digital platforms must maintain automated systems capable of reviewing, warning against, and removing unlawful listings while also implementing measures to prevent repeat violations, defined under Decree 248 as conduct that has previously been identified and handled by the platform, but continues to recur. This obligation addresses one
Read More
July 27, 2026
Tilleke & Gibbins’ intellectual property specialists have authored the Thailand chapter of Trade Secrets 2026 from Chambers and Partners. This global guide examines the legal frameworks governing trade secret protection, enforcement, and litigation across jurisdictions worldwide. The Thailand chapter provides a comprehensive overview of the country’s legal regime for protecting confidential business information, covering the legal framework, trade secret misappropriation, litigation procedures, remedies, and dispute resolution. Some topics covered include: Protectable trade secrets Reasonable measures to maintain secrecy Employee confidentiality Trade secret licensing Civil and criminal remedies Litigation procedures and injunctions Damages and other remedies Mediation and arbitration The guide also examines practical issues relating to safeguarding trade secrets, defending against allegations of misappropriation, and managing trade secret disputes in Thailand. Chambers and Partners’ Global Practice Guides provide in-house counsel with authoritative commentary on practical legal issues affecting business, enabling readers to compare legislation and procedures across multiple jurisdictions. The Thailand chapter of Trade Secrets 2026 is available on the Chambers and Partners website.
Read More
July 27, 2026
In March 2025, Thailand’s Central Intellectual Property and International Trade Court (IP&IT Court) issued a landmark judgment in favor of Luckin Coffee, China’s leading retail coffee chain. The judgment marked a significant turnaround following earlier trademark litigation involving Luckin Coffee from 2021 to 2023 that had generated widespread public attention and raised questions about the protection available to legitimate foreign brand owners in Thailand. In a significant subsequent development, Thailand’s Court of Appeal for Specialized Cases has now affirmed the IP&IT Court’s judgment in its entirety. The appellate decision brings clarity to one of Thailand’s most closely watched trademark disputes. Significantly, this is the first case in Thailand to formally recognize the trademark squatting principle. The Court of Appeal confirmed that Luckin Coffee has a better right to the disputed mark and ordered cancellation of the defendants’ trademark registration—a key application of the “better right” doctrine. The court also upheld the substantial damages awarded at first instance, providing important guidance on assessing harm from systematic trademark squatting. Award-Winning Judgment Affirmed in Its Entirety The significance of the first-instance judgment extended beyond the outcome for Luckin Coffee. The IP&IT Court judgment was subsequently recognized in the IP&IT Court’s Distinguished Judgment Awards in 2025, reflecting the complexity, novelty, and legal significance of the issues considered in the case. The defendants nevertheless appealed the judgment, challenging several key aspects of the IP&IT Court’s decision. Luckin Coffee continued to entrust Tilleke & Gibbins as their sole attorney to pursue the case at the appellate level. After considering the defendants’ appeal and Luckin Coffee’s submissions in response, the Court of Appeal affirmed the first-instance judgment in its entirety. The judgment was announced on July 8, 2026. Better Right to the Marks The Court of Appeal confirmed Luckin Coffee’s superior rights. The orders include cancellation
Read More
July 24, 2026
As food innovation continues to accelerate, manufacturers are increasingly introducing ingredients derived from new sources, produced using novel technologies, or lacking a significant history of human consumption. While these innovations create new opportunities for the food industry, they also raise important questions regarding consumer safety. For this reason, many jurisdictions, including Thailand, the European Union, Australia and New Zealand, Canada, and Singapore, require a premarket safety assessment for novel food ingredients before they can be placed on the market. The objective of this assessment is to ensure that each ingredient is safe for its intended use and level of consumption, does not present toxicological, allergenic, microbiological, or nutritional concerns, and will not mislead consumers. Scientific authorities typically evaluate the ingredient’s identity, manufacturing process, composition, specifications, anticipated dietary exposure, toxicological information, nutritional impact, and history of use before determining whether it can be marketed. Against this background, the Thai Food and Drug Administration (FDA) recently took an important step toward improving regulatory transparency by publishing, for the first time, a consolidated public list of substances that have successfully completed the Thai FDA’s safety assessment process, including substances determined to be novel foods and those determined not to fall within the novel food category. The list identifies the approved substances, the corresponding manufacturers or importers, approval dates, and the approved conditions of use. Although the publication does not change the existing legal framework governing novel food approvals, it provides businesses with greater visibility into the Thai FDA’s regulatory precedents and the types of substances that have previously been accepted through the safety assessment process. The full announcement is available on the Thai FDA’s website. As the list is now publicly available, it also provides useful insight into the types of substances that have successfully completed the Thai FDA’s safety assessment process.
Read More