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 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
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
July 27, 2026
Tilleke & Gibbins’ intellectual property specialists have authored the Thailand chapter of Trade Secrets 2026 from Chambers and Partners. This global guide examines the legal frameworks governing trade secret protection, enforcement, and litigation across jurisdictions worldwide. The Thailand chapter provides a comprehensive overview of the country’s legal regime for protecting confidential business information, covering the legal framework, trade secret misappropriation, litigation procedures, remedies, and dispute resolution. Some topics covered include: Protectable trade secrets Reasonable measures to maintain secrecy Employee confidentiality Trade secret licensing Civil and criminal remedies Litigation procedures and injunctions Damages and other remedies Mediation and arbitration The guide also examines practical issues relating to safeguarding trade secrets, defending against allegations of misappropriation, and managing trade secret disputes in Thailand. Chambers and Partners’ Global Practice Guides provide in-house counsel with authoritative commentary on practical legal issues affecting business, enabling readers to compare legislation and procedures across multiple jurisdictions. The Thailand chapter of Trade Secrets 2026 is available as a PDF through the button below. The full guide can be accessed for free on the Chambers and Partners website.
July 27, 2026
In March 2025, Thailand’s Central Intellectual Property and International Trade Court (IP&IT Court) issued a landmark judgment in favor of Luckin Coffee, China’s leading retail coffee chain. The judgment marked a significant turnaround following earlier trademark litigation involving Luckin Coffee from 2021 to 2023 that had generated widespread public attention and raised questions about the protection available to legitimate foreign brand owners in Thailand. In a significant subsequent development, Thailand’s Court of Appeal for Specialized Cases has now affirmed the IP&IT Court’s judgment in its entirety. The appellate decision brings clarity to one of Thailand’s most closely watched trademark disputes. Significantly, this is the first case in Thailand to formally recognize the trademark squatting principle. The Court of Appeal confirmed that Luckin Coffee has a better right to the disputed mark and ordered cancellation of the defendants’ trademark registration—a key application of the “better right” doctrine. The court also upheld the substantial damages awarded at first instance, providing important guidance on assessing harm from systematic trademark squatting. Award-Winning Judgment Affirmed in Its Entirety The significance of the first-instance judgment extended beyond the outcome for Luckin Coffee. The IP&IT Court judgment was subsequently recognized in the IP&IT Court’s Distinguished Judgment Awards in 2025, reflecting the complexity, novelty, and legal significance of the issues considered in the case. The defendants nevertheless appealed the judgment, challenging several key aspects of the IP&IT Court’s decision. Luckin Coffee continued to entrust Tilleke & Gibbins as their sole attorney to pursue the case at the appellate level. After considering the defendants’ appeal and Luckin Coffee’s submissions in response, the Court of Appeal affirmed the first-instance judgment in its entirety. The judgment was announced on July 8, 2026. Better Right to the Marks The Court of Appeal confirmed Luckin Coffee’s superior rights. The orders include cancellation