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​ 

June 23, 2026
Thailand’s Board of Investment (BOI) has significantly revised its post-approval compliance framework for projects that receive investment promotion incentives, replacing the previous semiannual reporting system for project progress with a new quarterly reporting regime. The initial report is due by July 30, 2026, covering the second-quarter reporting period of April to June 2026. The new requirements—implemented through BOI Announcement No. 8/2569 and Office of the BOI Notification No. Por. 8/2569, both of which became effective on March 30, 2026—apply both to newly promoted projects and to existing promoted projects that remain in the implementation stage. Background Under the previous reporting framework, BOI-promoted companies that had not yet commenced full operations were generally required to submit reports on project progress to the BOI twice a year (February and July) through the BOI’s e-Monitoring system. By adopting a quarterly reporting regime, the BOI seeks to strengthen monitoring and evaluation of investment progress and project implementation. Reporting Requirements Under the new regulations, BOI-promoted companies must submit project progress reports on a quarterly basis during the implementation phase of a promoted project. The reporting periods and submission deadlines are: Q1 (January–March): April 30 Q2 (April–June): July 30 Q3 (July–September): October 30 Q4 (October–December): January 30 of the following year The quarterly reporting obligation runs from the date the BOI promotion certificate is issued until the BOI grants approval for commencement of full operations. For newly promoted projects, no quarterly report is required for the quarter in which the BOI promotion certificate is issued—the first reporting obligation arises in the immediately following reporting period. All project progress reports must be submitted electronically through the BOI’s e-Monitoring system. The existing annual reporting requirement also remains in effect, requiring promoted companies to submit an annual operating results report through the e-Monitoring system by July 31 of
June 16, 2026
Since the implementation of the Trademark Law 2019 on April 1, 2023, Myanmar has operated under a modern first-to-file trademark system that brings its registration framework closer to international practice. As the new regime continues to develop in practice, applicants are increasingly required to navigate formal examination requirements, substantive objections, and procedural deadlines with greater precision. This article provides a high-level review of the trademark examination process in Myanmar, focusing on the principal stages from initial review to approval, the types of objections commonly raised by the Intellectual Property Department (IPD), and the key considerations for responding effectively. A clear understanding of these issues is essential for applicants seeking to secure registration efficiently and to mitigate avoidable delays or refusals. Examination Process: Key Stages Trademark applications filed with the IPD undergo two stages of review. Formality Examination The IPD first verifies compliance with procedural requirements, including: Correct Nice Classification Clear mark representation Accurate applicant details Clearly defined goods or services Representative details, if the application is filed by a representative Other formality requirements cover translation and transliteration of any non-English or non-Myanmar elements in the mark, color claim details, applicable disclaimers, and payment of official fees. Deficiencies result in an office action requiring correction within 30 days, which may be extended upon request. Registrability Examination The IPD also assesses registrability. A mark may be refused if it: Lacks distinctiveness Is descriptive or generic Misleads the public or violates public order/morality Contains prohibited state symbols Only compliant applications proceed to publication. Responding to Office Actions Applicants must respond within 30 days of notification from the IPD. Depending on the nature of the objection, strategies may include submitting legal arguments for distinctiveness, providing evidence of acquired distinctiveness, filing appropriate disclaimers, clarifying descriptions such as color claims, or amending the listed goods
June 15, 2026
The surge in AI development has led to a desperate demand for large, high-quality training data. However, real-world data can be expensive to collect, difficult to access, and often subject to strict privacy and regulatory constraints. Synthetic data, which consists of artificially generated records that replicate the statistical properties of real-world data without reproducing specific individuals’ information, provides an appealing solution by generating artificial datasets at scale without relying on identifiable personal information. It combines speed, cost efficiency, and regulatory compliance, making it a sensible alternative for organizations seeking to reduce risks while maintaining data utility. When properly anonymized, synthetic datasets may fall outside the scope of laws such as the EU’s General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR) or Thailand’s Personal Data Protection Act (PDPA), reducing compliance burdens while still supporting high-quality model training. However, relying on synthetic data without rigorous legal due diligence could be a strategic mistake. It replaces one set of known risks (scraping, direct privacy liability) with a new set of complex liabilities. The narrative that synthetic data is a “silver bullet” for privacy and IP compliance is dangerous and could be misleading. While synthetic data addresses data scarcity, it also introduces new legal uncertainties. Legal counsel should anticipate downstream risks arising from compromised data sources. Models trained on unlawfully obtained data may need to be decommissioned, even if their outputs appear lawful. What is synthetic data? Synthetic data refers to artificially generated information created using AI techniques such as deep learning and generative models. Instead of copying real records, it reproduces the statistical patterns and relationships found in the original dataset. Synthetic data generally falls into three categories: Fully synthetic data – Entirely new data points generated from learned patterns. The model studies the structure of the original data and produces records that resemble real-world
June 10, 2026
In March 2026, the Intellectual Property Office of Vietnam (IP Office) issued a decision refusing a trademark application after considering an opposition based primarily on copyright grounds. The outcome is noteworthy because the foreign brand owner had neither trademark registrations nor applications in Vietnam at the time the opposition was filed, and the IP Office has historically applied a stringent approach to oppositions relying on copyright. The Opposition Maurten is a well-known Swedish sports nutrition brand recognized globally for its innovative hydrogel technology, which is designed to help endurance athletes fuel more effectively without gastrointestinal discomfort. The brand’s distinctive logo is characterized by clean lines and a bold black-and-white color scheme, and has long been associated with the company’s performance products. The brand’s logo is displayed above. An identical mark was filed for registration by a Vietnamese trademark squatter. In 2023, a Vietnamese individual filed an application for registration of an identical mark (Application No. 4-2023-38668), a practice commonly observed in Vietnam as trademark squatting. The brand owner engaged Tilleke & Gibbins to assist with strategy and filing an opposition to the mark. At the time, Maurten had no trademark rights or meaningful use in Vietnam, and global marketing data showed only modest figures without any local presence. Thus, to convince the IP Office to refuse the squatter’s application, instead of relying on trademark rights or use evidence, the opposition strategy centered on the copyright protection of the logo itself, as copyright arises automatically in Vietnam upon creation of the work and does not require registration. (It is worth noting, however, that the IP Office has traditionally been cautious in accepting copyright as a basis for refusing trademark applications.) On September 24, 2024, an opposition was filed on three main grounds: confusing similarity, copyright infringement of the artistic work,