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 9, 2026
Recycling, upcycling, and refill-packaging models are now widely promoted as ways to reduce waste, lower carbon emissions, and respond to consumer demand for sustainable products. However, complications arise when these environmentally driven trends intersect with intellectual property law—particularly where reused or altered packaging continues to display third parties’ registered trademarks. Adding to this complexity, Thailand’s draft Sustainable Packaging Management Act aims to introduce new environmental compliance obligations that businesses must navigate alongside existing trademark concerns. Recycling and upcycling packaging may infringe trademark rights, especially in cases not protected by the first-sale doctrine—the principle that a trademark owner’s rights over a particular mark-bearing product end once the owner first sells it. Furthermore, even refill packaging carries legal risk due to specific statutory prohibitions under Thai law. Compounding these challenges, the draft Sustainable Packaging Management Act will impose extended producer responsibility (EPR) obligations on manufacturers and brand owners, requiring them to manage packaging throughout its lifecycle. These overlapping legal frameworks could deter manufacturers from pursuing ESG-aligned business models unless businesses understand how to navigate both trademark and environmental requirements. Under Thai law, this issue remains uncertain because the Trademark Act does not expressly codify the first sale doctrine, also known as the exhaustion of trademark rights. Generally, this doctrine provides that once a trademark owner has lawfully sold goods bearing its trademark, the owner’s right to control further resale of those particular goods is exhausted. The rationale is that the owner has already received commercial benefit from the first authorized sale; therefore, the purchaser should be free to resell or otherwise dispose of the goods. Although the doctrine is not expressly codified in the Trademark Act, Thai courts have recognized it in relation to genuine goods and parallel imports, as seen in a Supreme Court Judgment No. 2817/2543 in which the
Read More
July 6, 2026
Indonesia’s regulation on reporting online intellectual property (IP) infringement provides comprehensive procedural guidance for IP rights holders and their licensees in reporting online infringement complaints. Issued in December 2025 by the Ministry of Law as Regulation No. 47 of 2025 regarding Handling of Intellectual Property Infringement Reports in Electronic Systems, this regulation covers all types of IP rights. It also specifies documentation when reporting infringement, and lays out the procedures for examination, verification, and enforcement actions. Submission of Complaints Complainants may submit reports through the online system of the Directorate General of Intellectual Property (DGIP) or in person at the DGIP office. Complaints may also be filed through an authorized proxy. Under the regulation, complainants are required to provide the following information and documents: Personal details of the complainant; Brief description of the protected work or subject matter (i.e., type of IP and name or address of the infringing website, portal, account, or application, or a link to the location of the infringing content); Complete description of the alleged infringement; Certificate of registration or recordal of the relevant IP; Recordal of IP license agreement, if any; and Other supporting evidence. Verification and Examination Process Upon receiving a complaint, the responsible formality officer may request clarification or additional supporting documents. In the latter case, the complainant must then submit the necessary administrative documents within 14 days of the notification date. Once the documentation is deemed complete and sufficient, the case will be formally registered. Subsequently, the DGIP will establish a verification team to handle online IP violations, which will include the Civil Servant Investigator (PPNS), the Ministry of Communication and Digital Affairs, experts with relevant expertise in IP, and representatives from related associations such as AVISI (Indonesian Video Streaming Association). After examining the report, the team will prepare the Minutes
Read More
June 30, 2026
Customs recordation is an enforcement mechanism in Myanmar that enables intellectual property (IP) rights holders to seek prevention of the cross-border movement of infringing goods. The enactment of Myanmar’s IP laws in 2019 has enabled customs recordation for registered marks and copyrights under the Trademark Law 2019 and the Copyright Law 2019. By contrast, the Patent Law 2019 and the Industrial Design Law 2019 do not provide a practical framework for customs recordation, and accordingly such rights are not subject to the customs recordation regime. Under the Trademark Law 2019, rights holders may apply for customs recordation and may also ask the Customs Department to suspend the release of goods suspected of bearing counterfeit marks. Likewise, the Copyright Law 2019 allows for customs intervention in relation to pirated works. These provisions reflect Myanmar’s gradual alignment with international standards on border measures, although the implementation framework remains at a relatively early stage of development. Customs Recordation Pursuant to the Trademark Law 2019 and the Copyright Law 2019, the relevant authorities have issued customs rules concerning the protection of registered marks and copyrights. In practice, the process generally begins with the submission of an application to the Customs Department together with supporting documentation. This typically includes proof of registration in Myanmar; details of the rights holder, applicant, and any authorized representative; and a comprehensive description of the genuine goods. Product identification materials—such as photographs, packaging samples, and distinguishing features—are particularly important in helping customs officers identify suspected infringing goods. A recordation remains valid for two years from the date of approval. It may be renewed for additional two-year terms, provided that the renewal application is filed within the thirty days prior to expiry for marks and up to thirty days in advance of the expiry date for copyrights, in accordance with
Read More
June 24, 2026
Patent enablement requirements are provided under Article 102 of Vietnam’s Law on Intellectual Property (IP Law). In particular, a patent specification must “fully and clearly disclose the nature of the invention to such an extent that, based on the specification, a person having ordinary skill in the relevant art can implement the invention.” In pharmaceutical and biotechnology patents, this requirement is more complicated and subject to more rigorous assessment. The Patent Examination Guidelines (Guidelines) of the Intellectual Property Office of Vietnam (IP Office) were amended in March 2026 to introduce Annexes III and IV for the pharmaceutical and biotechnology sectors, in which Annex III provides detailed guidelines on the assessment of specification requirements. These amendments were made under a project for strengthening capacity in industrial property examination between the Japan International Cooperation Agency (JICA) and the IP Office. Annex III provides detailed instructions on how examiners assess enablement in a pharmaceutical or biotechnology application, and offers examples of acceptable and unacceptable descriptions with regard to the enablement aspect. Enablement Requirements in Pharma and Biotech Patents Article 12.7 of Circular 10/2026/TT-BKHCN (Circular 10) adds to the requirements of Article 102 of the IP Law that the description must demonstrate the novelty, inventive step, and industrial applicability of the technical solution. For pharmaceutical composition subject matters, Article 12.9 of Circular 10 sets out that the description must present the results of clinical trials and/or the pharmacological effects of the claimed pharmaceutical composition, and must include at least the following information: Substance/mixture used. Testing method (system) employed. Information on the test results. Correlation between the pharmacological effects obtained from the tests and the application of the pharmaceutical product in the prevention, diagnosis, and treatment of diseases. The Guidelines note that pharmacological study results should be presented in a quantified manner, and pharmacological
Read More