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​ 

June 16, 2026
Since the implementation of the Trademark Law 2019 on April 1, 2023, Myanmar has operated under a modern first-to-file trademark system that brings its registration framework closer to international practice. As the new regime continues to develop in practice, applicants are increasingly required to navigate formal examination requirements, substantive objections, and procedural deadlines with greater precision. This article provides a high-level review of the trademark examination process in Myanmar, focusing on the principal stages from initial review to approval, the types of objections commonly raised by the Intellectual Property Department (IPD), and the key considerations for responding effectively. A clear understanding of these issues is essential for applicants seeking to secure registration efficiently and to mitigate avoidable delays or refusals. Examination Process: Key Stages Trademark applications filed with the IPD undergo two stages of review. Formality Examination The IPD first verifies compliance with procedural requirements, including: Correct Nice Classification Clear mark representation Accurate applicant details Clearly defined goods or services Representative details, if the application is filed by a representative Other formality requirements cover translation and transliteration of any non-English or non-Myanmar elements in the mark, color claim details, applicable disclaimers, and payment of official fees. Deficiencies result in an office action requiring correction within 30 days, which may be extended upon request. Registrability Examination The IPD also assesses registrability. A mark may be refused if it: Lacks distinctiveness Is descriptive or generic Misleads the public or violates public order/morality Contains prohibited state symbols Only compliant applications proceed to publication. Responding to Office Actions Applicants must respond within 30 days of notification from the IPD. Depending on the nature of the objection, strategies may include submitting legal arguments for distinctiveness, providing evidence of acquired distinctiveness, filing appropriate disclaimers, clarifying descriptions such as color claims, or amending the listed goods
Read More
June 15, 2026
The surge in AI development has led to a desperate demand for large, high-quality training data. However, real-world data can be expensive to collect, difficult to access, and often subject to strict privacy and regulatory constraints. Synthetic data, which consists of artificially generated records that replicate the statistical properties of real-world data without reproducing specific individuals’ information, provides an appealing solution by generating artificial datasets at scale without relying on identifiable personal information. It combines speed, cost efficiency, and regulatory compliance, making it a sensible alternative for organizations seeking to reduce risks while maintaining data utility. When properly anonymized, synthetic datasets may fall outside the scope of laws such as the EU’s General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR) or Thailand’s Personal Data Protection Act (PDPA), reducing compliance burdens while still supporting high-quality model training. However, relying on synthetic data without rigorous legal due diligence could be a strategic mistake. It replaces one set of known risks (scraping, direct privacy liability) with a new set of complex liabilities. The narrative that synthetic data is a “silver bullet” for privacy and IP compliance is dangerous and could be misleading. While synthetic data addresses data scarcity, it also introduces new legal uncertainties. Legal counsel should anticipate downstream risks arising from compromised data sources. Models trained on unlawfully obtained data may need to be decommissioned, even if their outputs appear lawful. What is synthetic data? Synthetic data refers to artificially generated information created using AI techniques such as deep learning and generative models. Instead of copying real records, it reproduces the statistical patterns and relationships found in the original dataset. Synthetic data generally falls into three categories: Fully synthetic data – Entirely new data points generated from learned patterns. The model studies the structure of the original data and produces records that resemble real-world
Read More
June 10, 2026
In March 2026, the Intellectual Property Office of Vietnam (IP Office) issued a decision refusing a trademark application after considering an opposition based primarily on copyright grounds. The outcome is noteworthy because the foreign brand owner had neither trademark registrations nor applications in Vietnam at the time the opposition was filed, and the IP Office has historically applied a stringent approach to oppositions relying on copyright. The Opposition Maurten is a well-known Swedish sports nutrition brand recognized globally for its innovative hydrogel technology, which is designed to help endurance athletes fuel more effectively without gastrointestinal discomfort. The brand’s distinctive logo is characterized by clean lines and a bold black-and-white color scheme, and has long been associated with the company’s performance products. The brand’s logo is displayed above. An identical mark was filed for registration by a Vietnamese trademark squatter. In 2023, a Vietnamese individual filed an application for registration of an identical mark (Application No. 4-2023-38668), a practice commonly observed in Vietnam as trademark squatting. The brand owner engaged Tilleke & Gibbins to assist with strategy and filing an opposition to the mark. At the time, Maurten had no trademark rights or meaningful use in Vietnam, and global marketing data showed only modest figures without any local presence. Thus, to convince the IP Office to refuse the squatter’s application, instead of relying on trademark rights or use evidence, the opposition strategy centered on the copyright protection of the logo itself, as copyright arises automatically in Vietnam upon creation of the work and does not require registration. (It is worth noting, however, that the IP Office has traditionally been cautious in accepting copyright as a basis for refusing trademark applications.) On September 24, 2024, an opposition was filed on three main grounds: confusing similarity, copyright infringement of the artistic work,
Read More
June 10, 2026
For multinational franchisors operating in Thailand, a key risk after franchise termination is that former outlets may continue operating in ways that could easily mislead consumers into believing they remain within the authorized network. To justify such operations, former franchisees often argue that the termination was invalid or ineffective. As a result, these cases are often treated as contractual disputes, making it difficult for franchisors to obtain injunctive relief before a final judgment confirms that the termination was lawful. Franchisors face significant commercial and reputational harm during lengthy proceedings, including consumer confusion, disruption to franchise restructuring, and damage to brand reputation and customer trust. In an encouraging development, the Thai court in a 2025 case responded to the problem of unauthorized post-termination franchise operations by granting interim relief, recognizing broader brand and consumer harm, and awarding substantial damages, highlighting a successful litigation strategy of framing the dispute not merely as a contractual termination issue but as trademark infringement causing ongoing commercial injury. The Subway Case From December 2024 to mid-2025, an unauthorized “Subway®” franchise operation in Thailand attracted substantial public and media attention. Reports and online discussions about unauthorized Subway® stores circulated widely after complaints arose about food quality and customer experience at certain outlets that were allegedly operating after their franchise rights had expired. Because these stores continued to use Subway® trademarks, trade dress, and overall commercial appearance, many consumers were unable to distinguish them from authorized operations, resulting in reputational risks and customer confusion that affected the franchisor’s brand and franchise system in Thailand. Subway treated this matter with the utmost seriousness and moved promptly to protect its brand, franchise system, and customers. It filed a civil action with the IP&IT Court seeking a permanent injunction and damages. During the proceedings, the court granted a preliminary injunction
Read More