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​ 

July 15, 2026
Ambush marketing refers to a strategy in which a business associates itself with an event, campaign, or brand without paying for official sponsorship rights. The tactic is most visible in sports, concerts, and festivals, where official sponsors have invested substantially for exclusivity. Ambush marketers may use suggestive wording, event-themed imagery, athlete endorsements, venue-adjacent promotions, or social media campaigns implying a commercial connection with the event. Common Forms of Ambush Marketing Ambush marketing typically takes one of the following forms: Direct ambushing: using event names, logos, or mascots suggesting authorization Coattail ambushing: sponsoring an athlete or broadcaster connected with the event Subtle ambushing: themed advertising, venue-adjacent campaigns, or similar visual cues The legal analysis in each case turns on whether the marketing crosses from permissible event-based advertising into infringement, passing off, deception, or wrongful exploitation of goodwill, and the risk assessment is necessarily fact-specific. Thailand has no dedicated ambush marketing statute, so legality depends on execution. A campaign that merely comments on a public event may be permissible, but one that uses protected marks, creates consumer confusion, misrepresents sponsorship status, or makes unsubstantiated claims may trigger liability under various Thai laws, as laid out below. Ambush Marketing and Thailand’s Trademark Act The Trademark Act B.E. 2534 (1991) is the primary tool for addressing campaigns that use registered trademarks, event names, logos, mascots, or confusingly similar signs. The law gives registered trademark owners the exclusive right to use their mark for registered goods, and infringement risk arises when a nonsponsor uses an event mark or a confusingly similar sign in advertising. Even referential or playful use may create liability if it causes public confusion as to sponsorship or commercial connection. The law also preserves passing-off claims for unregistered marks. This matters because event names, taglines, or mascots may not always be
Read More
July 13, 2026
When Decree No. 186/2026/ND-CP (Decree 186) takes effect on July 15, 2026, it will introduce the most significant reform of Vietnam’s administrative IP enforcement framework since Decree 99/2013/ND-CP was issued in 2013. These changes are expected to make administrative enforcement faster, more accessible, and better suited to the realities of modern IP disputes. Below are the principal reforms and their practical implications for rights holders and enforcement practitioners. The End of Notarization and Consular Legalization Among the most welcome procedural changes is the abolition of the notarization and consular legalization requirement for powers of attorney (POA) submitted in administrative enforcement proceedings. Under the previous regime, foreign rights holders were generally required to execute a POA, then have it notarized and consular legalized (if seeking customs recordal). In practice, this process frequently delayed enforcement by four to eight weeks, often long enough for infringing goods to disappear before authorities could intervene. Decree 186 removes this bottleneck, now requiring only an original or certified copy of the POA. If the document is in a foreign language, a Vietnamese translation is sufficient, provided it is certified by a competent authority or confirmed by the authorized Vietnamese IP representative. Consular legalization and notarization are no longer required. For rights holders, the practical impact is substantial. Administrative enforcement files that previously took weeks to prepare can now be completed in a matter of days, allowing much faster responses in time-sensitive matters such as warehouse raids, border interventions, and trade-fair enforcement. The decree also introduces a useful administrative simplification. Where an original POA has already been submitted to the same enforcement authority and remains valid, applicants may rely on a copy of that earlier submission by identifying the previous case file. This eliminates unnecessary duplication for rights holders pursuing multiple enforcement actions before the same
Read More
July 10, 2026
Vietnam has taken a significant step in regulating its e-commerce sector with the issuance of a new decree guiding the country’s recently enacted Law on E-Commerce. Decree No. 248/2026/ND-CP, issued on June 30, 2026, and taking effect the following day, addresses mandatory platform policies, registration requirements for offshore platforms, additional obligations on platform operators, and market access conditions for foreign investors. Mandatory Policy Contents The decree sets out detailed guidance on the required contents of various platform policies, covering pricing, payment, display priority, livestream sales, delivery, returns, method of service provision, and service termination and refunds. Clarification of Obligations for Platform Operators The decree provides clarification of the obligations applicable to platform operators. Notably, intermediary e-commerce platform operators with online ordering functions must: Collect specific information to implement electronic identity verification of sellers; Cooperate with regulators by reporting online through the state e-commerce management system and by blocking, suspending, or removing content upon request of a competent authority; Maintain a mechanism to store contract data, including price, product or service information, and parties’ information, for at least three years from the date of contract conclusion; and If qualifying as a “large digital platform” under consumer protection law, maintain an online system for receiving and handling complaints and requests, and comply with enhanced content-removal requirements. Registration Requirements for Offshore Platforms Offshore e-commerce platforms, whether direct-sales, intermediary, social-network-based, or integrated, that conduct e-commerce activity in Vietnam must register with the Ministry of Industry and Trade if the platform: Allows Vietnamese-language selection; Uses a “.vn” domain; or Reaches 100,000 or more transactions with Vietnam-based buyers within a calendar year. Notably, the registration requirement now captures not only traditional intermediary platforms, but also direct-sales platforms. Foreign Investment Conditions Foreign investors holding a controlling interest in an intermediary e-commerce platform, a social media platform
Read More
July 9, 2026
Recycling, upcycling, and refill-packaging models are now widely promoted as ways to reduce waste, lower carbon emissions, and respond to consumer demand for sustainable products. However, complications arise when these environmentally driven trends intersect with intellectual property law—particularly where reused or altered packaging continues to display third parties’ registered trademarks. Adding to this complexity, Thailand’s draft Sustainable Packaging Management Act aims to introduce new environmental compliance obligations that businesses must navigate alongside existing trademark concerns. Recycling and upcycling packaging may infringe trademark rights, especially in cases not protected by the first-sale doctrine—the principle that a trademark owner’s rights over a particular mark-bearing product end once the owner first sells it. Furthermore, even refill packaging carries legal risk due to specific statutory prohibitions under Thai law. Compounding these challenges, the draft Sustainable Packaging Management Act will impose extended producer responsibility (EPR) obligations on manufacturers and brand owners, requiring them to manage packaging throughout its lifecycle. These overlapping legal frameworks could deter manufacturers from pursuing ESG-aligned business models unless businesses understand how to navigate both trademark and environmental requirements. Under Thai law, this issue remains uncertain because the Trademark Act does not expressly codify the first sale doctrine, also known as the exhaustion of trademark rights. Generally, this doctrine provides that once a trademark owner has lawfully sold goods bearing its trademark, the owner’s right to control further resale of those particular goods is exhausted. The rationale is that the owner has already received commercial benefit from the first authorized sale; therefore, the purchaser should be free to resell or otherwise dispose of the goods. Although the doctrine is not expressly codified in the Trademark Act, Thai courts have recognized it in relation to genuine goods and parallel imports, as seen in a Supreme Court Judgment No. 2817/2543 in which the
Read More