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 24, 2018

Answers to Commonly Asked Questions About Franchising in Vietnam

Subscribe to Updates

As of mid-2018, more than 200 franchises had been registered in Vietnam, including franchises in food and beverages, fashion, education, and other sectors. With half of its population of nearly 100 million under the age of 30, Vietnam is one of the fastest growing franchise markets in the world.

Before entering Vietnam, foreign franchisors should have a solid understanding of the country’s franchising regulations and practice. Below, we answer 10 questions commonly asked by prospective franchisors.

1. Are franchises required to be registered in Vietnam?

Foreign franchisors in any business sector must register their franchising activities with Vietnam’s Ministry of Industry and Trade (MOIT) before conducting franchising activities in Vietnam. A Franchise Disclosure Document (FDD), which includes information about the franchisor, costs and fees payable by the franchisee, and other relevant matters, must be filed with the MOIT as part of the registration process. In practice, registration with the MOIT typically takes about one to two months from the date of submitting a duly prepared application dossier.

Domestic franchisors do not need to register, but are required to notify their local Department of Industry and Trade of their activities.

2. We just set up a Singaporean company to act as the master franchisee for the Asia-Pacific region. Can it act as the master franchisee even if it was just set up last month?

The Vietnamese franchise regulations require that a franchise system must have been in operation for more than one year prior to franchising such system in Vietnam. However, in its current practice, the MOIT usually interprets this one-year qualification to mean that the local franchisor entity (the Singaporean company, in this case), as opposed to the franchise system, must have been in operation for more than one year. Thus, if the proposed master franchisee (sub-franchisor) has only been established for one month, the MOIT is likely to reject the registration, though they will consider each application on a case-by-case basis.

3. Are there any pre-disclosure requirements for franchisors in Vietnam?

Prospective franchisees are supposed to be given at least 15 days to review the FDD before the date of entry into the franchise agreement.

4. We are in a hurry to sign the franchise agreement, can the pre-disclosure requirements be waived?

In practice, some franchisees will sign an agreement to waive the 15-day pre-disclosure requirement. However, it is recommended that the FDD be provided to the potential franchisee before or at the signing of the franchise agreement.

5. Do we need to have our trademark registered in order to enter into a franchise agreement, and to register our franchise?

The franchising rules require the franchisor to have a registered trademark. However, if the trademark is pending (i.e., has been applied for in Vietnam, but is not yet granted), the MOIT may make an exception on a case-by-case basis. This exception has not been granted in all cases.

6. Can we choose foreign arbitration as the venue for resolving any disputes with the franchisee?

Choosing foreign arbitration is one of several viable options. However, we recommend choosing local arbitration at the Vietnam International Arbitration Center (VIAC). VIAC awards can be directly enforced, whereas foreign arbitral awards must go through a judicial procedure for recognition that can be time-consuming, with an unpredictable outcome. Recent reports indicate that about 75% of foreign arbitral awards are not successfully recognized and enforced, while for domestically rendered awards, only 35% are set aside by courts. Thus, statistically, domestic awards have a better chance, though at least two foreign arbitral awards in the franchising sector in Vietnam have been enforced. For example, a U.S. arbitral award was successfully enforced against a real estate brokerage franchisee in Vietnam.

It is a good idea to also have a carve-out for local litigation for injunctions and/or administrative actions related to IP breaches or infringements. In a case involving a rogue franchisee, an administrative raid by the Ministry of Science and Technology (MOST) Inspectorate was taken to force the rogue franchisee to cease using the franchisor’s trademark.

7. Should we also sign a trademark license agreement with the franchisee?

There is no precedent in Vietnam stating explicitly that the use of a trademark through a franchise agreement is guaranteed to accrue to the trademark registrant (and thus can be used as evidence to ward off a cancellation for non-use), though such conclusion would be logical and intuitive. However, by recording a trademark license agreement with the National Office of Intellectual Property (NOIP), a trademark registrant can increase the chances, if not 100% ensure, that such use inures to the trademark registrant. Thus, some very prudent franchisors choose to record their trademark license agreements with the NOIP.

8. Our franchisee plans to set up a local company incorporating the franchised brand name into the company name to act as the franchisee. Is that OK?

This situation seems to come up more and more in Vietnam and is unadvisable. If the local franchisee incorporates the foreign brand name or a local-language equivalent into its corporate name, and the franchising relationship breaks down, it would be very difficult to force the local company to change its name, even with proper license agreements in place. This is because the business licensing authorities in Vietnam are always very reluctant to force any company to change its name, even when there is a clear legal basis. It can be done, but would be time-consuming.

9. Are non-compete provisions enforceable in Vietnam?

Non-compete provisions have been included in many franchise agreements in force in Vietnam. Until recently, there had not been much precedent on the enforcement of such agreements. However, in an employment context, the Ho Chi Minh City Court recently upheld a non-compete agreement as a civil agreement between two contracting parties that should be respected and is enforceable. The court awarded damages to the employer in that case, where the employee failed to abide by a covenant to not work for a competitor for 12 months. Thus, there may be a strong basis to have a non-compete agreement enforced in Vietnam. However, it is worth noting that, in Vietnam, a lower court’s decision (such as the decision of the Ho Chi Minh City Court) is not regarded as a precedent. Only a decision of the Supreme People’s Court which is specifically declared by the court as a decision precedent will have this status.

10. Are there annual disclosure requirements that franchisors in Vietnam must follow?

Yes, franchisors are required to file a disclosure report every year before January 15. The report should include updated financial statements, and should amend any changes to the franchise system that are noted in Sections A and B of the required contents of the FDD under Circular 09, which is the primary legislation governing forms in franchising registration. Any changes to Section A items must also be informed on an ad hoc basis whenever such changes occur. Section A changes include changes in the trademarks that are franchised, and changes in name, address, form of business, or franchising sector of the franchisor.

Download Full Article
Related Professionals

Practices

Corporate/M&A

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 18, 2026
The Bank of Thailand (BOT) is seeking public comment on proposed amendments that would significantly expand know-your-customer (KYC) and customer due diligence (CDD) requirements for cash-related transactions at financial institutions (FIs) and specialized financial institutions (SFIs). Released on August 5, 2026, the proposed regulation would supersede BOT Notification No. 16/2569, which focused primarily on cash withdrawal transactions. The public comment period is open through September 3, 2026. The amendments reflect concerns that FIs and SFIs may be used to facilitate the movement, concealment, and conversion of criminal proceeds, potentially damaging institutional operations and public confidence in the financial system. Expanded Scope of Covered Transactions The most significant change is the broadening of the definition of “cash-related transactions.” Previously, the regulation covered only cash withdrawals and uncrossed check withdrawals. The amended regulation extends coverage to include: Cash deposits, check deposits, or receipt of funds from the public not in the form of deposit accounts; Thai baht (THB) banknote exchange (different denominations); Receipt of cash for issuing checks and drafts; and Purchase, sale, or exchange of foreign banknotes. Mandatory Identity Verification and Risk Management For all cash-related transactions, FIs and SFIs must require customers, or authorized or delegated persons, to present identification or verify their identity before every transaction, including one-time (walk-in) transactions. Specific identification requirements vary by transaction type, customer nationality, and channel (branch vs. electronic). FIs and SFIs must also establish comprehensive risk management processes and procedures for cash-related transactions. These requirements include identifying customers or authorized representatives in accordance with transaction-specific verification standards, analyzing customer behavior, implementing risk-management measures proportionate to the customer’s risk profile, and recording abnormal behavior in relevant systems. The BOT also encourages institutions to proactively guide customers toward transaction channels that offer greater traceability than cash. For corporate customers in high-risk business sectors—including foreign
Read More