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​ 

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
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
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
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