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​ 

July 27, 2026
Vietnam’s new E-Commerce Law, which took effect on 1 July 2026 along with its implementing Decree No. 248/2026/ND-CP (Decree 248), marks a significant development in the country’s approach to online intellectual property (IP) enforcement, reflecting a clear shift from a reactive model of intermediary liability to one that expects platforms to play a more active role in preventing infringement. From notice-and-takedown to platform responsibility The most significant change introduced by the E-Commerce Law is the transformation of the legal role of e-commerce platforms. The existing safe harbor provisions under the IP Law and the copyright notice-and-takedown regime established by Decree 17/2023/ND-CP (Decree 17) largely required intermediaries to act only after receiving notice of infringement. Once infringing content had been removed, the platform’s legal obligation was generally considered fulfilled. The new legislation adopts a fundamentally different approach. Article 17 of the E-Commerce Law requires intermediary platforms to screen information relating to goods and services before publication in order to prevent listings involving counterfeit or IP-infringing goods, and goods of unknown origin. Rather than relying exclusively on complaints from rights holders, platforms are now expected to implement preventive measures before infringing listings become publicly available. Decree 248 further requires platforms to update keyword filters based on recommendations issued by competent authorities. These filtering mechanisms are intended to prevent prohibited listings from appearing on the platform and represent a further move away from a purely complaint-driven enforcement model. The legislation also introduces Vietnam’s first statutory stay-down obligation. Under the E-Commerce Law and Decree 248, major digital platforms must maintain automated systems capable of reviewing, warning against, and removing unlawful listings while also implementing measures to prevent repeat violations, defined under Decree 248 as conduct that has previously been identified and handled by the platform, but continues to recur. This obligation addresses one
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