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 19, 2013

Decree 99 Provides New Guidelines on Administrative Sanctions for IP Infringement

Subscribe to Updates
Informed Counsel

The Vietnamese government recently enacted a new regulation on administrative sanctions in cases of industrial property infringement. Decree No. 99/2013/ND-CP, dated August 28, 2013 (Decree 99), came into effect on October 15 of this year, replacing Decree 97/2010/ND-CP (Decree 97).

The passage of the decree comes as the result of the enactment of the 2012 Law on Handling Administrative Violations, which aims to guide the implementation of the law in the field of industrial property rights (IPRs). Given the popularity of administrative measures in Vietnam, Decree 99 will play an important role in the enforcement of IPRs in Vietnam. Decree 99 introduces several major changes as compared to Decree 97.

Level of Fines

In accordance with the 2012 Law on Handling Administrative Violations, Decree 99 classifies the fine level on infringers into two categories. For each act of infringement, a company is subject to a fine twice as high as the one imposed on an individual infringer. For example, an individual infringer trading in counterfeits valued up to VND 5 million (USD 240) is subject to a fine from VND 4 million (USD 190) to VND 8 million (USD 380), while a company that commits the same infringement could be sanctioned with a fine from VND 8 million to VND 16 million (USD 760).

Decree 99 establishes a ceiling on the amount of fines that can be levied on infringers. Individual infringers are subject to a maximum fine of VND 250 million (USD 11,900), while juristic persons (companies) face a maximum fine of VND 500 million (USD 23,800).

Sanctioning Power

Under Decree 99, the Market Control Force is no longer permitted to deal only with infringement on the market, but is also empowered to inspect and sanction infringement directly at production sites, which is a major step forward from Decree 97.

In accordance with the 2012 Law on Handling Administrative Violations, Decree 99 also bestows sanctioning power upon the General Director of the General Department of Customs of Vietnam, who can sanction infringement at Vietnam’s borders.

Notably, under Decree 99, the Competition Authority of Vietnam is no longer entitled to deal with any unfair competition in the field of industrial property.

Valuation of Counterfeits

Counterfeits are no longer valued at the price of the genuine products. Because there are not always genuine products equivalent to the counterfeits, Decree 99 provides that counterfeits are valued as other infringing products. Specifically, the valuation of the counterfeit shall be based on (1) the tag price or the price in the purchase contract; (2) the price as posted by the local finance authority; or (3) the cost price. If it is not possible to value the counterfeits based on these grounds, the authority shall seek a valuation from a valuation council. The value of the counterfeits is of great importance in the determination of the fine.

Omission of Certain Infringing Acts

Under Decree 99, certain acts are no longer subject to sanctions. Most of these acts are related to the compliance of the putative infringer with the orders from the inspection workgroup in an ongoing inspection. To be more precise, Decree 99 does not sanction acts that prevent the inspection workgroup from inspecting/raiding the infringer, such as failure to comply with an order from the inspection workgroup, hindering the inspection/raid, and offending or disgracing the authorities.

Sanction on Counterfeit Marks/Stamps

Decree 99 determines the fine level for breaches relating to counterfeit marks/stamps based on the quantity of the seized marks/stamps. This is a major change as compared with Decree 97, which previously took into account the infringing acts, but not the quantity of the marks/stamps, when determining the fine level.

Power of Attorney in Enforcement

Decree 97 was quite vague on the formality of the power of attorney (POA) to be used in an enforcement action. As a result, in practice, different authorities had different POA requirements—some required it to be notarized and legalized, while others simply required it to be duly executed by the legal representative of the IPR holder.

Decree 99, however, clarifies the formality requirements so that the competent authorities will have a consistent understanding. As construed from Decree 99, the POA must be duly executed and notarized. In case of no notarization, the POA must be legalized.

Domain Name Disputes

Domain name disputes are still resolved by the administrative route. However, the time frame for a cyber-squatter to voluntarily surrender a disputed domain name under Decree 99 is 30 days from the date of the sanctioning decision. After the deadline expires, the competent authority will compulsorily withdraw the domain name. Given the previous one-year time frame for the voluntary withdrawal set forth by the guiding regulation of Decree 97 (i.e., Circular 37/2011/TT-BKHCN), the new timeline in Decree 99 demonstrates real progress.

As construed from Decree 99, a subordinate regulation of the decree is expected to be passed in the near future so as to provide guidelines regarding the procedure for the withdrawal and revocation of a disputed domain name.

Company Name Issue

Decree 99 prescribes a clearer and stronger legal consequence if a company with an infringing name fails to voluntarily change its name. Under Decree 97, the legal consequence of the failure was simply a publication of warning against the company on the national business registration gateway. But under Decree 99, within 60 days from the effective date of the sanctioning decision by the enforcement body, the company must change its name and record the change with the business registration authority. If it fails to do so, the business registration authority will revoke the business license of the company.

By clarifying a number of previously vague issues on administrative sanctions, Decree 99 should be helpful to IPR owners, as it improves the enforcement environment in Vietnam.

Download Full Article
Related Professionals

Practices

Intellectual Property

Location

RELATED INSIGHTS​ 

August 13, 2026
Modern agricultural machinery is no longer purely mechanical but instead technology dependent. Modern tractors, harvesters, and other farm equipment increasingly incorporate embedded software, electronic control units, sensors, and digital diagnostic systems. While such technologies enhance efficiency, productivity, and precision farming, they also affect the manner of equipment repair and maintenance. As a result, farmers and independent repair providers may have little practical choice but to rely on authorized dealers, even for routine maintenance and repairs. Section 36 of Thailand’s Patent Act reflects the principle that the authorized sale of a patented invention usually exhausts the exclusive right of the patent owner over the specific product. This means that upon legal sale of the patented product, it can typically be used or resold without further authorization from the patent holder. This principle is relatively straightforward when applied to traditional mechanical equipment. Ownership of a machine ordinarily carries with it the practical ability to diagnose faults, replace worn parts, and restore the equipment to working order. Modern agricultural machinery, however, increasingly depends on embedded software, proprietary diagnostic systems, firmware updates, and other digital resources that may remain under the control of the manufacturer or patent holder. This tension lies within the “right to repair” debate. In the United States, on July 8, 2026, the Federal Trade Commission and five states announced a settlement with Deere & Company resolving allegations that Deere had unlawfully restricted farmers’ and independent repair providers’ ability to repair their equipment. Under the terms of the settlement, for the next ten years, Deere must provide repair resources, including software capabilities, on terms equivalent to those provided to authorized dealers. The Deere settlement highlights that the nature of ownership is changing, but legal concepts have not kept pace. Traditional patent-law concepts, including patent exhaustion, were developed with physical products
Read More
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 6, 2026
Introduction: A Trademark Paradox in Sustainable Packaging Walk into any Thai supermarket, and the label-free water bottle is no longer a novelty. Thailand’s packaging market, valued at approximately USD 15.68 billion in 2025, is shifting toward minimalist, plastic-light designs as ESG pressures reshape how brands present their products. The country generated roughly 5.68 million tons of plastic waste in 2021, with a recycling rate of only 19 percent, and regulators are now considering rules that would allow label-free bottled water relying on embossing, laser printing, or QR codes instead of wrap-around labels. As packaging itself becomes the brand identifier, a paradox emerges: designs built to say the least often struggle hardest for protection under Thai intellectual property law. The Trademark Barrier: When Shape Is Not Enough Section 7, paragraph 2(10) of the Thai Trademark Act deems a shape distinctive only if it is not the natural form of the goods, is not necessary to achieve a technical result, and does not add value to the goods. The Department of Intellectual Property’s 2022 examination guidelines apply this test conservatively, as the following examples illustrate. A plain water bottle relying on subtle contours to signal its brand is typically read as just another bottle, not a source identifier. Acquired distinctiveness offers a theoretical escape route, but it demands extensive evidence of sales, advertising, and consumer recognition—an especially heavy burden for new entrants whose minimalist packaging has not yet achieved market prominence. The result is a structural bias against precisely the design innovation that sustainability goals are meant to encourage. Design Patents: A Partial, Imperfect Substitute Design patent protection, covering a product’s shape, configuration, or ornamentation, appears to offer an alternative route. In practice, it is constrained by the same forces driving the minimalist trend. Because many brands converge on similar solutions—clear
Read More
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
Read More