Tilleke & Gibbins’ labor and employment team in Hanoi and Ho Chi Minh City has contributed the Vietnam chapter to Labor and Employment Disputes 2025. Drawing on the expertise of three of the firm’s employment specialists, the chapter provides practical guidance for navigating employment disputes in Vietnam and covers: Pre-action considerations: key requirements, third-party funding, contingency fee arrangements Issuing a claim: forum, territorial jurisdiction, standing, commencing claims, fees, service, defendants and legal personality, types of claims, time limits, counterclaims Case management: procedure, rules, amendments to claims, adding parties, consolidating proceedings, class and collective actions, evidence, witnesses, tactical considerations Interim relief: availability, requirements Trial: hearings conduct and time frames, confidentiality and public access, media reporting, elements of successful claims and burden of proof Alternative dispute resolution: available types, requirements and expectations, enforcement Collective employment and labor rights: enforcement and standing Remedies and enforcement: available remedies, assessing compensation, enforcement mechanisms Appeals: procedure, time frames, other means of challenge Updates and trends: recent cases and developments, technology developments, other issues The Vietnam chapter is available in full at the link below. Tilleke & Gibbins also contributed the Cambodia and Thailand chapters to Labor and Employment Disputes 2025. Readers can also gain 30 days of complementary access to the full Labor and Employment Disputes 2025 guide and the rest of Lexology Panoramic’s varied offerings through this link.

In the Thailand contribution to Labor and Employment Disputes 2025, four members of Tilleke & Gibbins’ Bangkok labor and employment team outline key aspects of dispute resolution in Thailand. Their analysis, part of Lexology Panoramic’s comparative guide covering jurisdictions worldwide, addresses the following areas: Pre-action considerations: key requirements, third-party funding, contingency fee arrangements Issuing a claim: forum, territorial jurisdiction, standing, commencing claims, fees, service, defendants and legal personality, types of claims, time limits, counterclaims Case management: procedure, rules, amendments to claims, adding parties, consolidating proceedings, class and collective actions, evidence, witnesses, tactical considerations Interim relief: availability, requirements Trial: hearings conduct and time frames, confidentiality and public access, media reporting, elements of successful claims and burden of proof Alternative dispute resolution: available types, requirements and expectations, enforcement Collective employment and labor rights: enforcement and standing Remedies and enforcement: available remedies, assessing compensation, enforcement mechanisms Appeals: procedure, time frames, other means of challenge Updates and trends: recent cases and developments, technology developments, other issues The complete Thailand chapter can be downloaded below. Tilleke & Gibbins also contributed the Cambodia and Vietnam chapters to Labor and Employment Disputes 2025. Readers can also gain 30 days of complementary access to the full Labor and Employment Disputes 2025 guide and the rest of Lexology Panoramic’s varied offerings through this link.

Under Thai law, authorized directors stand as a company’s mind and will and, as such, may incur personal criminal liability for acts or omissions committed in the course of company business. When allegations surface, directors must be prepared for the practical reality that, before guilt or innocence is ever adjudicated, they could be deprived of liberty unless bail release is promptly achieved through the competent legal authority. When Bail Can Be Granted Two procedural moments trigger the need to consider bail. The first arises during the investigative phase, when a claim is lodged against a director with the competent law enforcement authorities. Upon receipt of a complaint, the assigned inquiry officer summons the director for questioning, compiles evidence, and ultimately forwards a prosecution or nonprosecution recommendation to the public prosecutor. Although the public prosecutor retains ultimate discretion to indict an accused director, the police or prosecutor may conclude that pretrial detention is necessary and may therefore apply to the court for an order to hold the director in court custody. The second moment occurs after a criminal case is filed directly with the court. This occurs once a court accepts a criminal case filed by a prosecutor against a director or, alternatively, when the court accepts a case filed by an individual for trial. For cases filed by individuals, the plaintiff presents prima facie evidence at the preliminary hearing, and the court will accept the complaint if it finds sufficient grounds, thereby conferring upon the director the status of a criminal defendant. Upon acceptance of the criminal case, the court then has the inherent authority to order custody pending trial unless the defendant secures bail release. Procedural Considerations Experienced litigants typically prepare bail security in advance and submit a bail petition at the earliest possible time. While there are

On June 6, 2025, the Superior People’s Court in Hanoi overturned a non-use cancellation decision by the Intellectual Property Office of Vietnam, a rare and impactful occurrence. In a ruling that may help clarify the enforcement of Vietnam’s IP Law, the court held that valid trademark use can be established through commercial arrangements where the brand owner maintains actual control over the use of the mark, and is not confined to relationships governed by a so-called “formal license agreement. Background: Cross-Border Use, Local Challenge A Singapore company owns a well-known brand of consumer products that has gained recognition across Southeast Asia. In recent years, the brand has been targeted by several unauthorized trademark filings in Vietnam. In one such instance, a local Vietnamese trading company—previously linked to the production and export of counterfeit goods to neighboring countries—filed a non-use cancellation against the Singapore company’s mark and sought to register it under its own name. If the cancellation had been upheld, it would have enabled a complete hijacking of the brand. The IP holder operates in Vietnam through a structured cross-border supply chain. Under an agreement between two related foreign entities, one of which managed regional operations, production orders were placed through a designated Vietnamese company. While the Vietnamese manufacturer was not a party to the agreement, its role in using the mark was recognized and governed by internal and commercial documentation. The Vietnamese manufacturer lawfully obtained the necessary permits, regulatory approvals, and customs clearances for producing the goods in Vietnam. These activities were supported by banking records and internal communications, evidencing active, continuous use of the mark in Vietnam. However, the IP Office concluded that this use did not meet the statutory criteria because the Vietnamese manufacturer did not have a direct license agreement with the brand owner, as