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After petitioning the Ministry of Information and Communications (MIC) based on MOST’s decision, the domain names were withdrawn by VNNIC (the Vietnam domain name registry), pursuant to an MIC directive.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​ 

August 10, 2026
Thailand has finalized its social media KYC (“know your customer”) rules under Notification of the Electronic Transactions Commission on Measures to Prevent Technological Crimes for Social Media Service Providers (No. 2), which was published in the Government Gazette on May 5, 2026, and will take effect on November 1, 2026. While an early draft of the notification proposed requiring social media platforms to arrange identification of every user account, the final notification is significantly more targeted, focusing on paid online advertising and advertiser identity verification. Though the regulatory initiative primarily aims to combat online fraud and technology-related crimes, it also has important consequences for intellectual property enforcement, because the verified platform records that will be generated under the new requirements can help IP rights holders to identify anonymous online infringers. Key Regulatory Mandates The notification requires social media service providers to verify the identity of advertisers before their paid advertisements are published and disseminated in Thailand through social media, regardless of whether the advertising fees come from the advertisers or third parties. Verification of an advertiser is valid for one year, after which verification would have to be performed again before the platform could publish additional paid advertisements from the advertiser. Permitted verification methods are specified under the notification. A platform may verify an advertiser by checking identity evidence and confirming the connection between the advertiser and that identity evidence, with the notification giving facial comparison against certain government-issued identity documents as an example. Alternatively, platforms may verify advertisers through a digital identity verification and authentication system with an identity-proofing assurance level not lower than the level prescribed by Thailand’s Electronic Transactions Commission. The notification further requires platforms to retain only the advertiser’s information necessary to identify the advertiser, beginning from the start of the advertising activity and for
Read More
August 10, 2026
On July 31, 2026, Thailand’s Big Data Institute (BDI) launched a public consultation on the principles of a proposed new data-sharing law, with comments accepted until August 31, 2026. If enacted, the law would establish Thailand’s first comprehensive framework for government and private-sector data sharing, creating a systematic, secure, and transparent regime to support analytics, policymaking, research, and innovation. Central Data-Sharing Platform The draft law establishes a central system for data sharing, managed by the BDI. Government agencies would be required to connect to the BDI’s Data Integration and Intelligence Platform (also referred to as D2), in accordance with the BDI’s rules and procedures. Five Dimensions of Data Sharing The draft law covers five key types of data sharing between government (G), businesses (B), and consumers (C): G2B: Private organizations may request government data specifically for research and development purposes. The BDI will assess the applicant’s data governance, security, and privacy capabilities whether such measures meet prescribed standards before forwarding the request to the relevant government agency within 90 days. Any dispute may be escalated to a newly established Data-Sharing Promotion Committee for final determination. G2G: Government agencies may request data from other agencies through the central system. The data-holding agency must respond within 90 days, taking legality, necessity, proportionality, public interest, and personal data protection into account. Disputes may be referred to the Data-Sharing Promotion Committee for adjudication. B2G: In emergency situations involving public safety, economic security, or disaster response, the Minister of Digital Economy and Society may require private entities to provide data through the central data-sharing system. Government agencies must specify the data requested, demonstrate its necessity and expected benefits, and request only data reasonably available to the data holder. Requests for personal data must be limited to the minimum amount necessary. B2C: Royal decrees may
Read More
August 10, 2026
Thailand’s Office of the Personal Data Protection Committee (PDPC) recently released draft guidance on records of processing activities (ROPA) for personal data controllers and processors under the Personal Data Protection Act B.E. 2562 (2019) (PDPA). The draft guidance, which was presented to the public on July 7, 2026, addresses both controller records of collection, use, and disclosure of personal data and processor records of processing activities carried out on behalf of controllers. If implemented, the guidance will significantly expand organizational expectations for ROPA preparation, maintenance, and use across all sectors. Key Takeaways The draft guidance contains several important implications for organizations subject to the PDPA: ROPA reframed as a core accountability tool. The guidance elevates ROPA from an administrative record to a central accountability mechanism, connecting controller duties with recordkeeping obligations. ROPA as a source for privacy notices and governance documents. ROPA should serve as the primary source for privacy notices and align with consent management, retention schedules, DPIAs, incident response plans, and vendor contracts. Expanded scope across all activities. ROPA must cover all processing activities across the organization—including security, finance, HR, and external contractors—with correct controller or processor classification for each. Ongoing maintenance and auditability. ROPA must be updated for any change to systems, purposes, or processors, reviewed at least annually, and maintained with version control and a designated owner. Enhanced vendor, processor, and cross-border transfer requirements. Organizations must document all processors, external recipients, and cross-border transfers, specifying purposes, access scope, and destination countries. Linkage with risk assessment, DPIAs, and LIAs. ROPA should assign risk levels to each activity and identify when data protection impact assessments (DPIAs) or legitimate interests assessments (LIAs) are required, functioning as a risk-management tool. ROPA and data breach readiness. Incomplete ROPA can delay breach response and notification. Organizations should map data flows, vendors,
Read More
August 10, 2026
On June 17, 2026, Indonesia’s National Agency of Drug and Food Control (BPOM) issued BPOM Regulation No. 10 of 2026 on Nutritional Information on Processed Food Labels. The new regulation, which revokes three previous nutrition labeling regulations, introduces several notable changes affecting food and beverage manufacturers, importers, and distributors. These changes range from updated nutrient reference values and serving-size requirements to the introduction of the Nutri-Level front-of-pack labeling system for certain beverage products. Businesses operating in Indonesia should carefully review these developments and assess their products’ compliance with the new requirements during the transition period. Implementation of the Nutri-Level Labeling System To implement the recently issued decree on Nutri-Level labeling, BPOM Regulation No. 10 of 2026 stipulates the requirements to implement the Nutri-Level labeling system on the front-of-pack. Under the new framework, ready-to-drink beverages, powdered beverages, and liquid or solid concentrates are required to display Nutri-Level labeling on the front label of their packaging. The Nutri-Level labeling system classifies products into color-coded levels A through D based on their sugar, sodium, and total fat content. The applicable Nutri-Level is determined based on the lowest level measured in the assessment of sugar, sodium, and total fat content. For products classified as level C or D, the Nutri-Level label must be accompanied by information on the relevant sugar, sodium, and total fat content per 100 ml of the ready-to-consume product. Products classified as level A or B may either display only the Nutri-Level designation or display the Nutri-Level together with the relevant nutritional information per 100 ml. Minimum Vitamin and Mineral Content Required for Declaration BPOM Regulation No. 10 of 2026 introduces a stricter threshold for the declaration of vitamins and minerals in the nutritional value information section (ING). Vitamins or minerals may only be declared if they are present at a
Read More