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

February 4, 2015

Applying Preliminary Injunctions in IP Lawsuits in Vietnam

Subscribe to Updates
Managing Intellectual Property

In commercial lawsuits in general, and IP lawsuits in particular, the ability of rights holders to access one or more forms of injunctive relief is of utmost importance. The availability and effectiveness of preliminary injunctions can show to some extent the maturity and effectiveness of the enforcement system. For such reasons, a correct understanding of the applicability of preliminary injunctions in Vietnam is of practical use.

More Options

First of all, it is necessary to clarify that at present in Vietnam, the most popular forms of IPR enforcement are administrative and border control measures rather than civil measures. However, preliminary injunctions, which are specified in the Law on Intellectual Property (“IP Law”) and the Civil Procedure Code, are only applied in the process of a civil lawsuit in the courts.

The grounds for the application of preliminary injunctions in IP lawsuits are stipulated in Articles 206 to 210 of the IP Law. When the IP Law was promulgated in 2005, it was considered a step forward as it was the first time the law contained any provisions on IP enforcement. The grounds for the application of preliminary injunctions in general are specified in Articles 99 to 126, Chapter VIII of the 2004 Civil Procedure Code (as amended in 2011).

The earliest that a preliminary injunction can be requested is at the time of lodging a civil complaint (this can perhaps be understood as right at the time of filing). The preliminary injunction will only be considered if the rights holder can provide evidence demonstrating one of the following: (1) there is a threat of irreparable damage; (2) there is a threat of dispersal or destruction of suspected infringing goods and related evidence if they are not protected in time. The preliminary injunction by its nature may be applied ex parte  before the court hears the opinions of the party subject to such preliminary injunction. However, in practice, in considering the request for a preliminary injunction, the judge may invite the parties for a meeting to debate the application of such measure.

The specific preliminary injunctions that can be applied are seizure; sealing/freezing; prohibition of changing status; prohibition of moving; prohibition of transferring ownership and other measures which are not specified in the IP Law but in the Civil Procedure Code. In an actual 2009 case, the People’s Court of Thanh Hoa Province in a lawsuit on patent and industrial design between the plaintiff, Cong ty TNHH Thanh Dong, and the defendant, Ninh Ngoc Thanh, applied the preliminary injunction of a “ban on manufacturing and doing business” in infringing goods, which is not intrinsically specified in the IP Law but had a basis in the Civil Procedure Code (Decision No. 28/2009/QD-BPKCTT dated 14 April 2009).

When requesting the application of preliminary injunctions, the requestor may be required to carry out security measures by paying an amount equal to 20% of the value of goods subject to the preliminary injunction, or at least VND 20 million (approximately USD 950) if the value of such goods cannot be easily determined. It is further explained that, depending on the assessment of the judge in charge of the lawsuit, the specific amount may be higher, but may not be less than VND 20 million. However, it should be noted that not every request for a preliminary injunction will necessitate security measures such as payment. For some preliminary injunctions, the law stipulates that security measures are not required. Therefore, results may not always be as expected, or consistent.

Invisible Obstacles

Although the legal regulations are rather clear, reality presents a completely contrasting picture. There are no official annual statistics on how many orders of preliminary injunctions have been issued by the courts but it is likely that the number is very low, or almost zero, simply because the annual number of IP cases resolved in court is very low, and among the cases settled in court, the number of cases requesting preliminary injunctions is also very low and the number of orders of preliminary injunctions which are approved is even lower.

Operating practice also shows the number of orders of preliminary injunctions is very low because of the psychological barriers coming from the judges’ excessive caution as well as pressures from many sides in the process of considering whether or not to apply the preliminary injunction.

Download Full Article
Related Professionals

Practices

Dispute Resolution and Litigation

Intellectual Property

Location

RELATED INSIGHTS​ 

August 18, 2026
Securing a favorable judgment is often only the midpoint of a dispute. For businesses and investors, the more important commercial question is whether that judgment can be converted into actual recovery. In Thailand, this typically requires the judgment creditor to enforce the judgment through the Legal Execution Department by seizing, attaching, auctioning, or otherwise executing against the judgment debtor’s assets. Thailand’s schedule of these enforcement fees was last revised by an amendment to the Civil Procedure Code that took effect in September 2025. The Civil Procedure Code Amendment Act (No. 33) B.E. 2568 (2025) updated the schedule of execution officer fees listed in table 5 of the Civil Procedure Code. While the amendment did not eliminate the costs associated with enforcement, it lowered several key execution officer fees and abolished certain fees that previously applied even where enforcement did not ultimately result in the sale or disposition of assets. The reform is intended to reduce the financial burden associated with judgment enforcement and remove unnecessary obstacles to settlement once enforcement proceedings have commenced. As a result, it has practical implications not only for judgment creditors seeking to maximize recovery, but also for debtors considering settlement after enforcement has begun and for businesses and investors assessing litigation and credit risk in Thailand. Key Changes The amendment introduced several changes to the execution officer fee structure. First, where seized or attached assets are sold by public auction or otherwise disposed of, the execution officer fee has been reduced from 3% to 2% of the sale or disposition proceeds. This fee remains separate from announcement costs and other out-of-pocket expenses incurred during the enforcement process. Second, where seized or attached funds are paid to a judgment creditor, the execution officer fee has been reduced from 2% to 1% of the amount recovered.
Read More
August 13, 2026
Modern agricultural machinery is no longer purely mechanical but instead technology dependent. Modern tractors, harvesters, and other farm equipment increasingly incorporate embedded software, electronic control units, sensors, and digital diagnostic systems. While such technologies enhance efficiency, productivity, and precision farming, they also affect the manner of equipment repair and maintenance. As a result, farmers and independent repair providers may have little practical choice but to rely on authorized dealers, even for routine maintenance and repairs. Section 36 of Thailand’s Patent Act reflects the principle that the authorized sale of a patented invention usually exhausts the exclusive right of the patent owner over the specific product. This means that upon legal sale of the patented product, it can typically be used or resold without further authorization from the patent holder. This principle is relatively straightforward when applied to traditional mechanical equipment. Ownership of a machine ordinarily carries with it the practical ability to diagnose faults, replace worn parts, and restore the equipment to working order. Modern agricultural machinery, however, increasingly depends on embedded software, proprietary diagnostic systems, firmware updates, and other digital resources that may remain under the control of the manufacturer or patent holder. This tension lies within the “right to repair” debate. In the United States, on July 8, 2026, the Federal Trade Commission and five states announced a settlement with Deere & Company resolving allegations that Deere had unlawfully restricted farmers’ and independent repair providers’ ability to repair their equipment. Under the terms of the settlement, for the next ten years, Deere must provide repair resources, including software capabilities, on terms equivalent to those provided to authorized dealers. The Deere settlement highlights that the nature of ownership is changing, but legal concepts have not kept pace. Traditional patent-law concepts, including patent exhaustion, were developed with physical products
Read More
August 11, 2026
Cambodia’s Ministry of Justice has launched a new platform on its official website to publish notices of forced sales issued by each municipal and provincial court of first instance. The platform’s stated purpose is to inform the public and facilitate greater participation in forced-sale auctions conducted in connection with court-ordered enforcement proceedings. How the Platform Works The platform publishes forced-sale notices from courts of first instance across Cambodia’s municipalities and provinces and includes a link where the public can view properties currently subject to forced sale. To participate in a forced-sale auction, individuals can download Khmer-language bidding application forms through links provided on the platform. The form typically requires the applicant’s name, sex, year of birth, identity card number and issue date, and address, together with details identifying the immovable property (including its ownership certificate number), the relevant enforcement case number and date, and the reference to the public auction or tender announcement issued by the court. Completed application forms must be submitted directly to the specific municipal or provincial court that issued the forced sale. For further inquiries about a particular forced sale, interested parties should likewise contact the relevant municipal or provincial court. Forced Sale of Immovable Property in Cambodia The publication of these notices relates to the forced sale procedure for immovable property under Cambodia’s Code of Civil Procedure (CPC). Unlike property seizure by a court, a forced sale is a compulsory execution proceeding—a subsequent enforcement step that arises only after an underlying dispute has been adjudicated and a debtor fails to pay the debt or outstanding amount due under a final and binding judgment or other enforceable title of execution. For the purposes of this procedure, the term “immovable property” under the CPC refers to land, registered buildings, jointly held shares of such property, registered
Read More
August 10, 2026
Thailand has finalized its social media KYC (“know your customer”) rules under Notification of the Electronic Transactions Commission on Measures to Prevent Technological Crimes for Social Media Service Providers (No. 2), which was published in the Government Gazette on May 5, 2026, and will take effect on November 1, 2026. While an early draft of the notification proposed requiring social media platforms to arrange identification of every user account, the final notification is significantly more targeted, focusing on paid online advertising and advertiser identity verification. Though the regulatory initiative primarily aims to combat online fraud and technology-related crimes, it also has important consequences for intellectual property enforcement, because the verified platform records that will be generated under the new requirements can help IP rights holders to identify anonymous online infringers. Key Regulatory Mandates The notification requires social media service providers to verify the identity of advertisers before their paid advertisements are published and disseminated in Thailand through social media, regardless of whether the advertising fees come from the advertisers or third parties. Verification of an advertiser is valid for one year, after which verification would have to be performed again before the platform could publish additional paid advertisements from the advertiser. Permitted verification methods are specified under the notification. A platform may verify an advertiser by checking identity evidence and confirming the connection between the advertiser and that identity evidence, with the notification giving facial comparison against certain government-issued identity documents as an example. Alternatively, platforms may verify advertisers through a digital identity verification and authentication system with an identity-proofing assurance level not lower than the level prescribed by Thailand’s Electronic Transactions Commission. The notification further requires platforms to retain only the advertiser’s information necessary to identify the advertiser, beginning from the start of the advertising activity and for
Read More