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

November 24, 2015

Bringing Brands to Vietnam

Informed Counsel

A recent Nielsen survey concluded that Vietnam ranks third in the world in terms of consumer fondness for branded goods, with 73 percent of Vietnamese participants responding that they liked to buy products of famous brands. In addition, 56 percent said they were willing to pay more for designer products than for others of a similar nature. Owners of global brands that are looking to enter Vietnam’s promising market have several options available.

Establishing a Company

A foreign investor may directly sell its goods in Vietnam by establishing a wholly foreign-owned enterprise (WFOE), forming a joint venture company with a local Vietnamese entity, or acquiring or subscribing for equity in an existing Vietnamese company.

Vietnam practices the doctrine of corporate ultra vires, meaning that all enterprises, including WFOEs, may only engage in business lines that are approved by the licensing authorities. Before forming a Vietnam subsidiary, a foreign investor would need to determine its intended business lines (e.g., retail and restaurant services), then assess whether there are foreign-ownership restrictions or other regulatory requirements in place for such business lines.

In retail, for example, foreign investors are permitted to incorporate WFOEs in Vietnam. There are no foreign-ownership restrictions for retail business lines. But certain regulatory requirements must be considered. Any additional outlets set up beyond the first must satisfy an Economic Needs Test, which consists of several highly subjective factors. The result is that the establishment of retail outlets beyond the first by WFOEs would be at the discretion of the authorities.

Establishing a company may be a good choice for foreign investors who want to do long-term business with stability. This method also gives them the ability to manage and operate their businesses directly. However, the investor would likely face greater expenses in establishing, maintaining, and expanding its business as compared to the other methods discussed below, and establishing a company may also require a greater outlay of time and resources for the investor to sufficiently acquire or develop knowledge of the local market.

Franchising

Franchising is one of the fastest ways for foreign brands to bring their goods or services to the Vietnam market. As of mid-2015, 137 foreign franchisors had registered in Vietnam, largely in the sectors of restaurants (43.7 percent), fashion (19.3 percent), and education (14.1 percent).

The most obvious advantage of franchising is the ability to expand a business by using the manpower, capital, and local market knowledge of franchisees, while still maintaining control over the quality of goods and services. A franchisor can also direct how it would like the local franchisees to develop the business, such as by setting up minimum targets for opening outlets.

A foreign franchisor entering Vietnam through a franchising arrangement with a Vietnamese partner does not need to have a legal presence in Vietnam. The franchised business system, however, must have been operating for at least one year prior to franchising.

A foreign franchisor must register its franchise with the Ministry of Industry and Trade. But the definition of what constitutes a “franchise” under the current law is broad and ambiguous. The definition is:

“A commercial activity in which a franchisor gives a franchisee the right to independently purchase and sell goods or provide services in accordance with the business system specified by the franchisor, and for such goods and services to be associated with the trademark, trade name, business know-how, business logo, and advertising of the franchisor; and the franchisor has the right to control and provide support to the franchisee in conducting the business.”

This is problematic because other business arrangements, such as distribution or agency arrangements, are often linked with intellectual property (e.g., trademarks and business know-how) or technology transfer agreements, and such business arrangements could potentially qualify as a “franchise” under this definition.

Current franchising regulations are unclear on how to precisely determine whether a particular commercial arrangement would trigger franchise registration requirements. For example, because there is no further legal guidance on what constitutes a “business system,” merely requiring a local partner to fit out its premises in a certain manner in selling branded goods or services could arguably trigger franchising regulations.

Using an Agent or Distributor

A foreign investor may also have its branded goods or services sold in Vietnam through contractual arrangements with local agencies or distributors, referred to as “commercial agencies” and “representatives of a business entity,” respectively, under Vietnam’s Commercial Law. A commercial agency conducts business activities under its own name for the principal, while a representative of a business entity is authorized and instructed by the principal to conduct business activities in the name of the principal.

The specific responsibilities of a Vietnamese agent or distributor will depend on its agreement with the foreign investor. Foreign investors should conduct sufficient due diligence on potential local partners to ensure that they have the requisite licenses, facilities, and other requirements necessary to meet their responsibilities. Commercial agreements should clearly set out the rights and obligations of each party as well as dispute resolution mechanisms, among other matters. Often, these arrangements involve aspects of intellectual property, at least in respect of the goods or services.

These arrangements, unlike franchising, do not need to be registered. However, given the unclear definition of franchising, a foreign investor should carefully consider whether a proposed arrangement with a local partner would trigger franchising regulations or other legal requirements.

As each of the methods above has its pros and cons, brand owners should choose the method that best suits their particular business goals.

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
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
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.
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