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​ 

September 14, 2026
Myanmar’s first-to-file trademark registration regime under the Trademark Law 2019—which became fully operational in April 2023—provides mark owners with enhanced legal protection compared with the country’s former system. Correspondingly, the current system imposes more rigorous statutory requirements for obtaining, maintaining, and enforcing rights in marks. In this first-to-file trademark registration system, however, evidence of use remains particularly significant, as it may establish acquired distinctiveness, support a claim that a mark is well-known, and strengthen the owner’s position in both registration and enforcement proceedings. Accordingly, it can be said that this framework is underpinned by three key concepts: distinctiveness, well-known status, and, importantly, use of the trademark. Trademark Distinctiveness Under the Trademark Law, signs that lack distinctiveness are generally ineligible for mark protection. These signs include generic terms, basic shapes, unstylized single letters or numerals, and signs that merely describe the kind, quality, quantity, intended purpose, value, geographical origin, production time, or other characteristics of the relevant goods or services. However, a mark that would otherwise be refused on distinctiveness or descriptiveness grounds may be registrable if it has acquired distinctiveness through its use prior to the filing date. To show this, the applicant must demonstrate that the mark became distinctive to relevant consumers through continuous, exclusive, and good-faith use in trade within Myanmar. The burden of proving acquired distinctiveness rests with the mark owner. Accordingly, sufficient evidence demonstrating both use of the mark and the level of consumer recognition attained should be prepared in advance. Well-Known Mark Criteria Myanmar’s Trademark Rules, which govern the substantive examination of mark registration applications, establish criteria for determining well-known marks, aligned with international standards. Where an applicant claims well-known status—whether to overcome a refusal on relative grounds or to oppose a third party’s registration—the registrar will assess the claim based on the following
Read More
September 14, 2026
On August 23, 2026, Vietnam’s National Assembly passed Law No. 11/2026/QH16, amending the country’s Customs Law with effect from March 1, 2027. The amendments represent a substantial reform of Vietnam’s customs-based intellectual property enforcement regime. The reforms come amid considerable external pressure. In its 2026 Special 301 review, the US Trade Representative (USTR) designated Vietnam a “priority foreign country,” citing widespread counterfeiting, weak border enforcement, limited ex officio customs powers, and the absence of controls over goods in transit. Vietnam’s legislative response signals a commitment to bringing its border enforcement practices into line with international expectations. For IP rights holders operating in or through Vietnam, the amended law introduces several tools that substantially strengthen enforcement options at the border. Closing the Transit Gap One of the most consequential amendments is the extension of IP-related customs enforcement to goods in transit. Previously, Vietnam’s customs regime applied IP controls only to goods being imported or exported, a gap the USTR had specifically identified as enabling infringing goods to pass through Vietnamese ports with impunity. Vietnam’s geographic position as a logistics hub for Southeast Asia means that substantial volumes of goods transit its ports and free-trade zones. Extending enforcement to cover these shipments brings Vietnam closer to the standard set by the EU’s customs enforcement regulation and addresses a longstanding concern of multinational brand owners whose goods are frequently counterfeited in the region. Strengthened Suspension and Ex Officio Powers The amended law introduces a dual-track suspension mechanism (Article 73(2)). Customs authorities will suspend clearance upon request by an IP rights holder (or authorized representative) who provides evidence of IP ownership, evidence of infringement, and a financial guarantee. Customs can now proactively suspend clearance on an ex officio basis if, during inspection and monitoring, they discover “clear grounds” to suspect that imported, exported,
Read More
September 7, 2026
Indonesia’s Constitutional Court (Mahkamah Konstitusi) has reinstated a key provision limiting pharmaceutical patent protection, signaling a renewed commitment to balancing patent rights with public access to medicines. In its ruling to Case No. 255/PUU-XXIII/2025, the court partially granted a petition for judicial review of Law No. 65 of 2024, which had amended the country’s Patent Law, and ordered the restoration of a provision that had excluded certain pharmaceutical inventions from patentability. The decision took effect immediately upon its pronouncement at the court’s plenary session on August 28, 2026. Background The petition challenged the removal of article 4(f) from Law No. 13 of 2016 concerning Patents (Patent Law), as amended by Law No. 65 of 2024. Article 4(f) had excluded from patentability certain inventions relating to new uses of known substances. The petitioners argued that removing this provision would open the door to patent protection for second medical use inventions and facilitate patent evergreening—practices that can extend exclusivity periods, delay generic market entry, and reduce public access to affordable medicines. The petitioners included several patient advocacy and public-interest organizations: the Indonesian Dialysis Patients Community Association, the Indonesian Association of Drug Abuse Victims (PKNI), the Indonesian Pulmonary Hypertension Foundation (YHPI), the Rekat Peduli Indonesia Foundation, and the Indonesian Positive Women’s Association (IPPI), along with the Indonesia for Global Justice Association and four individual petitioners. The petitioners also challenged the constitutionality of the phrase “interested party” in article 70(1) of the Patent Law, arguing that it should be construed expressly to clarify who has standing to appeal a decision to grant a patent before the Board of Patent Appeal, and to allow a broader range of parties—such as patent holders, licensees, consumer organizations, prosecutors, aggrieved third parties, and others who may suffer direct or indirect harm from the grant of a patent—to
Read More
September 2, 2026
Thailand and China have a longstanding and significant trade relationship, which increasingly extends to e-commerce and digitally enabled supply chains. While these channels create new opportunities for businesses to reach consumers across borders, their growth also brings greater exposure to intellectual property (IP) infringement across jurisdictions and online platforms. Effective cooperation between the two countries’ enforcement authorities has therefore become increasingly important. To strengthen cooperation in this area, Thailand and China signed a memorandum of understanding (MOU) on IP enforcement in Beijing on July 20, 2026, during the Thai prime minister’s official visit to China. Officially titled “Memorandum of Understanding Between the State Administration for Market Regulation of the People’s Republic of China and the Ministry of Commerce of the Kingdom of Thailand on Cooperation in the Field of Intellectual Property Enforcement,” the MOU forms part of a broader bilateral agenda covering industrial and supply chains, participation by micro, small, and medium-sized enterprises (MSMEs), cooperation associated with the ASEAN–China Free Trade Area 3.0, and progress on the registration of Thai geographical indications in China. The MOU establishes a bilateral framework for cooperation and coordination in five broad areas: Strengthening dialogue in IP enforcement; Enhancing information sharing; Facilitating the enforcement of IP rights in cases arising in the parties’ domestic markets and on online platforms, in accordance with their respective domestic laws; Promoting cooperation in IP enforcement training and human resource development; and Undertaking other cooperation activities agreed upon by both sides. The Department of Intellectual Property (DIP) will serve as the principal coordinating agency for Thailand, while the Bureau of Law Enforcement and Inspection in China’s State Administration for Market Regulation (SAMR) will serve in that role for China. The framework is particularly relevant to the growth of e-commerce, as it covers infringement in the domestic markets and on
Read More