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

April 30, 2015

Busy Spring for Enforcement Authorities in Vietnam

Subscribe to Updates
Managing Intellectual Property

In early 2015, Vietnamese authorities continued their stepped-up IP enforcement campaigns, showing a commitment to improve the IPR situation against the backdrop of TPP and EU FTA negotiations. Notable cases included:

Trade Name Infringement Precedent

In Vietnam, the law on resolving trade name disputes is quite complicated due to overlapping regulations that have changed several times. Moreover, the local Departments of Planning and Investment (DPI), which handle business registration matters, are typically reluctant to order a business to change its corporate name, even if there has been a decision from an IP authority declaring the name to be a trademark infringement. This is due to the rarity of such cases, so it is new territory for the local DPIs. Furthermore, it is an administrative burden for many parties, as bank records, tax records, signage, contracts, etc., all may be affected by a name change.

A creative approach was recently taken to enforce a trade name infringement decision. Specifically, a Vietnamese computer company had registered a corporate name identical to the name of a famous foreign insurance company, and had registered infringing domain names. A complaint for cybersquatting and trademark infringement was filed by the insurance company at the Ministry of Science and Technology (MOST) Inspectorate. Because the case was based on well-known trademark grounds (due to the companies being in different sectors), the MOST Inspectorate queried the National Office of Intellectual Property (NOIP—the Vietnam IP registry) for its opinion on the fame of the insurance trademark. The NOIP opined that the mark was widely used and recognized by the Vietnamese public. Accordingly, the MOST Inspectorate then issued a decision declaring the infringements.

After petitioning the Ministry of Information and Communications (MIC) based on MOST’s decision, the domain names were withdrawn by VNNIC (the Vietnam domain name registry), pursuant to an MIC directive. However, despite a petition from the rights holder, the local DPI declined to force the computer company to change its corporate name. Accordingly, counsel representing the insurance company petitioned the Ministry of Justice’s Division of Law Enforcement Supervision, which is charged with overseeing the consistent application of laws by all agencies, to intervene and compel the local DPI to order the infringer to change its business name, to be consistent with MOST’s conclusion on the case. Based on the MOJ directive, the DPI then ordered the infringer to change its name.

This case shows the complexities in handling IPR infringements in Vietnam, as many agencies may be involved in handling a case. For example, this case involved six authorities: MOST, NOIP, MIC, VNNIC, local DPI, and MOJ. The case also displays the transparency in the Vietnamese legal system, when various agencies can be petitioned and handle matters in correct accordance with their own authority, and proper procedures for intervention are found in the law and can be effectively utilized by legal counsel.

Strides in Patent Enforcement

Following several recent patent infringement victories last year in administrative and civil forums by foreign patent holders in the pharmaceutical and agrochemical sectors, patent litigation jurisprudence continued to develop in early 2015. Of note is the following recent case in which a major U.S.-based patent holder had obtained an expert opinion from the Vietnam Intellectual Property Research Institute (VIPRI) opining that a Vietnamese company’s diabetes medication was infringing. As a result, the MOST Inspectorate inspected the Vietnamese company and seized and ordered the re-export of the raw materials used to make the infringing product. Also, the packaging was ordered to be destroyed.

Most importantly, as part of a settlement with the authorities, the infringer agreed to withdraw the marketing authorizations of the products at the Drug Administration of Vietnam (DAV). This was possibly the first order to re-export a raw material infringing a pharmaceutical patent.

In another case involving a major European pharmaceutical company, the DAV expressly affirmed that it will only order the withdrawal of a marketing authorization for an infringing product upon receipt of a decision from a court or an IPR enforcement authority (such as the MOST Inspectorate)—this is a key point for practitioners and rights holders to note.

Parallel Imports Seized

Parallel imports of all products are generally allowed in Vietnam. They are especially popular in the ultra-competitive pharmaceutical sector, and can have a deleterious effect on pharmaceutical company revenues. In a precedent-setting case, the Hanoi Market Management Department (MMD) seized several parallel imports of a diabetes drug based on counsel’s successful argument that the product sub-label contained a false designation of origin, stating the wrong country of manufacture. Public policy arguments were also presented—that the storage standards for the actual zone of manufacture would not guarantee that the product would be preserved adequately in Vietnam, and that the country of export had banned the export of the product. The MMD fined the distributor and destroyed the goods, and sent a communique to the DAV requesting that order be restored in relation to parallel imports to protect the public

These cases were handled by Tilleke & Gibbins’ Vietnam offices. In other key IP news from early 2015:

  • INTA and the MOST Inspectorate inked an MOU for a project on well-known trademarks to culminate in a report on recommendations for best practices, and a roundtable meeting. This is an important initiative as Vietnam prepares to amend its IP Law.
  • Vietnam’s MOJ and other authorities are redrafting the IP crime provisions of the Criminal Code. Stakeholders hope for more application of criminal liability for IPR crimes.
Download Full Article
Related Professionals

Location

RELATED INSIGHTS​ 

July 27, 2026
A new decree on penalties for violations related to the crypto asset market creates compliance risks for offshore crypto asset exchanges in Vietnam that do not hold, and practically cannot obtain, a Vietnamese license, and for Vietnamese users who continue to transact on those platforms. Decree No. 284/2026/ND-CP (Decree 284), issued by the government of Vietnam on July 16, 2026, formally establishes an administrative penalty framework for violations related to crypto assets and the crypto asset market. The decree takes effect on September 1, 2026, and will remain in force for the duration of the five-year pilot program under Resolution No. 05/2025/NQ-CP, which is scheduled to end in September 2030. Direct Penalties on Vietnamese Users The most immediate commercial risk to offshore platforms is that their Vietnamese users now face direct personal liability for using their exchanges. Vietnamese users who trade crypto assets outside of a Ministry of Finance-licensed service provider face fines of up to VND 50 million (approximately USD 1,900). Vietnamese users trading in crypto assets that are offered or issued to foreign users face higher penalties of up to VND 100 million (approximately USD 3,800). It is expected that Vietnamese users will be more willing to migrate away from offshore platforms now that there is a risk of real enforcement against them. Penalties on Unlicensed Service Providers Violations of providing crypto asset services or advertising crypto-related services without a license face fines of up to VND 200 million (approximately USD 7,700). Operating a crypto asset trading market without proper authorization falls within the same highest penalty bands. Organizations that violate issuance, provision, or disclosure rules may face fines of up to VND 200 million. Although the maximum administrative fine per violation is capped at VND 200 million for organizations and VND 100 million for individuals, these
Read More
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.
Read More
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
Read More
July 24, 2026
As food innovation continues to accelerate, manufacturers are increasingly introducing ingredients derived from new sources, produced using novel technologies, or lacking a significant history of human consumption. While these innovations create new opportunities for the food industry, they also raise important questions regarding consumer safety. For this reason, many jurisdictions, including Thailand, the European Union, Australia and New Zealand, Canada, and Singapore, require a premarket safety assessment for novel food ingredients before they can be placed on the market. The objective of this assessment is to ensure that each ingredient is safe for its intended use and level of consumption, does not present toxicological, allergenic, microbiological, or nutritional concerns, and will not mislead consumers. Scientific authorities typically evaluate the ingredient’s identity, manufacturing process, composition, specifications, anticipated dietary exposure, toxicological information, nutritional impact, and history of use before determining whether it can be marketed. Against this background, the Thai Food and Drug Administration (FDA) recently took an important step toward improving regulatory transparency by publishing, for the first time, a consolidated public list of substances that have successfully completed the Thai FDA’s safety assessment process, including substances determined to be novel foods and those determined not to fall within the novel food category. The list identifies the approved substances, the corresponding manufacturers or importers, approval dates, and the approved conditions of use. Although the publication does not change the existing legal framework governing novel food approvals, it provides businesses with greater visibility into the Thai FDA’s regulatory precedents and the types of substances that have previously been accepted through the safety assessment process. The full announcement is available on the Thai FDA’s website. As the list is now publicly available, it also provides useful insight into the types of substances that have successfully completed the Thai FDA’s safety assessment process.
Read More