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 6, 2026
Introduction: A Trademark Paradox in Sustainable Packaging Walk into any Thai supermarket, and the label-free water bottle is no longer a novelty. Thailand’s packaging market, valued at approximately USD 15.68 billion in 2025, is shifting toward minimalist, plastic-light designs as ESG pressures reshape how brands present their products. The country generated roughly 5.68 million tons of plastic waste in 2021, with a recycling rate of only 19 percent, and regulators are now considering rules that would allow label-free bottled water relying on embossing, laser printing, or QR codes instead of wrap-around labels. As packaging itself becomes the brand identifier, a paradox emerges: designs built to say the least often struggle hardest for protection under Thai intellectual property law. The Trademark Barrier: When Shape Is Not Enough Section 7, paragraph 2(10) of the Thai Trademark Act deems a shape distinctive only if it is not the natural form of the goods, is not necessary to achieve a technical result, and does not add value to the goods. The Department of Intellectual Property’s 2022 examination guidelines apply this test conservatively, as the following examples illustrate. A plain water bottle relying on subtle contours to signal its brand is typically read as just another bottle, not a source identifier. Acquired distinctiveness offers a theoretical escape route, but it demands extensive evidence of sales, advertising, and consumer recognition—an especially heavy burden for new entrants whose minimalist packaging has not yet achieved market prominence. The result is a structural bias against precisely the design innovation that sustainability goals are meant to encourage. Design Patents: A Partial, Imperfect Substitute Design patent protection, covering a product’s shape, configuration, or ornamentation, appears to offer an alternative route. In practice, it is constrained by the same forces driving the minimalist trend. Because many brands converge on similar solutions—clear
Read More
August 6, 2026
Every month, VAT-registered businesses in Thailand calculate their output and input VAT and file a return to pay the net amount due or claim a refund. Yet a common and costly dispute arises when a business that has paid input VAT to its supplier—and done everything asked of it—later finds that input VAT rejected on the grounds that the tax invoice was issued by “a person not entitled to issue tax invoices.” In these cases, a buyer may have confirmed the supplier’s VAT registration on the Revenue Department’s website, paid through the banking system, received a complete tax invoice, and kept full payment and inventory records. Even so, if the Revenue Department later determines that the supplier did not genuinely make the sale or collected the VAT without remitting it, the department can disallow the input VAT and assess additional tax, surcharge, and penalty—often more than a year after the transaction. A new article from tax and dispute resolution specialists at Tilleke & Gibbins in Bangkok examines how the Revenue Department and the courts approach these disputes, including two recent Supreme Court (Tax Division) decisions confirming that the taxpayer bears the burden of proving a supplier genuinely sold and delivered the goods and received payment. It considers why the VAT registration system offers no legal safe harbor, why the evidentiary burden falls hardest on online and cross-border transactions where buyers and sellers never meet, and how the Revenue Department’s own digital infrastructure could detect non-remitting suppliers at the source rather than shifting the loss to good-faith buyers. The article also sets out practical guidance: how to build a comprehensive “know-your-supplier” file at the time of a transaction, the procedural steps and strict deadlines for challenging a VAT assessment, and why dispute readiness belongs alongside tax planning at the center
Read More
August 4, 2026
Intellectual property (IP) protection sometimes hinges on fame and recognition. However, this alone will not always be sufficient to overcome an IP dispute when it involves contractual obligations or registered rights. Below are five cases from around the world that tackle some of the basic issues in IP registration, ownership, commercialization, and enforcement. 1. USA: Taylor Swift Trademark Application Refused Taylor Swift recently filed a trademark application to register “The Life of a Showgirl,” which is the title of her 12th studio album. When examining a trademark application, the examiner considers various factors before deciding whether it should be registered. One of these factors is whether there is a likelihood of confusion (i.e., would a regular consumer mistake the origin of the trademark). In Taylor Swift’s case, the US Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO) decided that that there would be a risk of confusion. This decision was based on the existing registered trademark, “Confessions of a Showgirl,” owned by Maren Wade, which was registered in 2015. The USPTO refused Taylor Swift’s application based on the shared key distinctive element “of a showgirl,” the lack of sufficient distinguishing terms, the marks being used in overlapping markets (entertainment and performances), and because consumers may assume a common commercial source. Maren Wade then filed a lawsuit in California against Taylor Swift and her affiliated companies, arguing that Taylor Swfit’s branding is confusingly similar in structure, wording, and overall commercial impression to her registered mark. She is also drawing on the USPTO’s refusal of Taylor Swift’s application to support her argument of a likelihood of confusion. A judgment has not yet been reached in this case, but it serves as an important reminder of the importance of satisfying the essential elements required for IP registration. 2. Australia: Katy Perry v. Katie Perry In
Read More
July 27, 2026
Vietnam’s new E-Commerce Law, which took effect on 1 July 2026 along with its implementing Decree No. 248/2026/ND-CP (Decree 248), marks a significant development in the country’s approach to online intellectual property (IP) enforcement, reflecting a clear shift from a reactive model of intermediary liability to one that expects platforms to play a more active role in preventing infringement. From notice-and-takedown to platform responsibility The most significant change introduced by the E-Commerce Law is the transformation of the legal role of e-commerce platforms. The existing safe harbor provisions under the IP Law and the copyright notice-and-takedown regime established by Decree 17/2023/ND-CP (Decree 17) largely required intermediaries to act only after receiving notice of infringement. Once infringing content had been removed, the platform’s legal obligation was generally considered fulfilled. The new legislation adopts a fundamentally different approach. Article 17 of the E-Commerce Law requires intermediary platforms to screen information relating to goods and services before publication in order to prevent listings involving counterfeit or IP-infringing goods, and goods of unknown origin. Rather than relying exclusively on complaints from rights holders, platforms are now expected to implement preventive measures before infringing listings become publicly available. Decree 248 further requires platforms to update keyword filters based on recommendations issued by competent authorities. These filtering mechanisms are intended to prevent prohibited listings from appearing on the platform and represent a further move away from a purely complaint-driven enforcement model. The legislation also introduces Vietnam’s first statutory stay-down obligation. Under the E-Commerce Law and Decree 248, major digital platforms must maintain automated systems capable of reviewing, warning against, and removing unlawful listings while also implementing measures to prevent repeat violations, defined under Decree 248 as conduct that has previously been identified and handled by the platform, but continues to recur. This obligation addresses one
Read More