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

June 23, 2020

EVFTA Introduces New Standards for Intellectual Property Enforcement in Vietnam

Subscribe to Updates

While Vietnam’s economy has grown quiet during the first half of 2020 amid the COVID-19 pandemic, the country’s legal framework for intellectual property enforcement seems to be exploding with the entry of new legal instruments. The EVFTA (EU-Vietnam Free Trade Agreement), coming on the heels of the CPTPP, will come into force in Vietnam on August 1, 2020, bringing about some major changes to the current IPE framework. We discuss a few of these changes below.

Preliminary Injunctions

The EVFTA clarifies and supplements the circumstances in which a right holder can seek a preliminary injunction. Particularly, the EVFTA requires Vietnam to codify the following situations where interlocutory injunctions are applicable:

  • To preclude an infringement from occurring; and
  • To preserve evidence in respect of an alleged infringement, including physical seizure of infringing goods and any materials and implements used for producing and distributing the goods.

The court can grant such interim injunctive relief against a “party whose services are being used by a third party to infringe an intellectual property right and over whom the relevant judicial authority exercises jurisdiction.”

As currently provided in Vietnam’s domestic laws, the court can issue provisional measures without hearing the other party’s position. However, the domestic laws are still incompatible with the EVFTA as they allow the filing of preliminary injunction motions only in the context of a lawsuit (right at the time of filing a suit or during the proceedings of the suit). When the EVFTA takes force, Vietnam must remove this regulation and allow a motion to be filed at any appropriate time.

In fact, in 2017, Vietnam introduced a draft law on provisional measures prior to a suit. However, some of the relevant stakeholders were critical of this draft law and, so far, it seems it is still on the shelf. However, Vietnam could soon revisit this matter to conform with the EVFTA’s requirements.

Court Injunctions

With the advent of the EVFTA, Vietnamese courts can now issue final injunctions not only against infringers, but also against parties who provide relevant services to infringers, such as those who store or manage infringing goods. When it comes to unintentional infringement, the EVFTA seems to favor a soft approach. The pact recommends Vietnam make allowance for pecuniary relief in replacement of certain remedial measures. It also proposes that Vietnam’s courts “order in favor of the injured party the recovery of profits or the payment of damages which may be pre-established.” In our view, in most cases, such granted amount would be a far cry from the actual damages the right holder incurs.

Notably, the EVFTA seems to require Vietnam to introduce a regime of “permanent injunction.” Thus far, the final injunctions issued by courts apply to infringement that occurred in the past or is ongoing. To some extent, it is a one-time injunction. When the infringer commits recidivism, the right holder must file another suit to put a stop to such infringement. Now, with the language of Article 12.49 of the EVFTA’s IP Chapter, the court can issue a final injunction to prevent infringement in the future.

Presumption of Ownership

So far, Vietnam has not expressly touched on the presumption of authorship or ownership of rights. This lack of regulation poses a real difficulty to the courts in tackling IP disputes, especially copyright infringement. Often, an IP marking does not come into play in the court’s assessment as Vietnamese courts tend to count on clear regulations or confirmation from other authorities on the ownership. In a recent court case, the court was unaware of the ownership of a copyrighted work despite the copyright symbol (©) appearing on the work. With the clear regulation under the EVFTA, it is expected that IP enforcement, especially copyright enforcement, will be greatly facilitated.

Also, a product configuration (the shape or design of a product) under the EVFTA would enjoy protection as both industrial design and copyright. As such, if a product configuration is not registered as a design patent, the owner could fall back on copyright law to take on copycat traders.

Other Changes

The EVFTA provides for the liability of internet service providers (ISPs) in the context of copyright infringement. Generally, the treaty focuses on the limitations of, or exceptions from, such liabilities, which differs substantially from the structure of the current domestic law, which sets out situations where the ISP must assume responsibility (in other words, the ISP does not bear any responsibility in situations other than those mentioned in the law). As of the effective date of the EVFTA, Vietnam must revise the current regime to reflect the EVFTA’s requirement.

The EVFTA also regulates border enforcement. Generally, the domestic laws are in line with these regulations. The EVFTA obligates customs authorities to be actively involved in customs seizure of suspected IP-infringing goods, and to cooperate with right holders, including providing them with relevant information for risk analysis.

Though the EVFTA ushers Vietnam into an era of more effective IP enforcement, it is just a foundation, a law in the books, until Vietnam does more to actually enforce IP rights to the satisfaction of right holders, and meeting the expectations of the EVFTA.

Related Professionals

Practices

Intellectual Property

Location

RELATED INSIGHTS​ 

September 24, 2026
Vietnam is implementing and developing a broad package of regulatory reforms that could reshape how IP, data, digital platforms, and product authenticity are regulated and enforced. Several of the key measures have been led by the Ministry of Public Security in its legislative and administrative capacity, as part of a broader government effort. The core reform package consists of four key legal instruments: proposed amendments to the Criminal Code, a proposed new Data Security Law, a draft Decree on Product Identification, Authentication and Traceability, and the newly enacted Decree No. 330/2026/ND-CP. These instruments include rules on criminal enforcement, data security, electronic identification, product identification and traceability, administrative violations, and cybersecurity sanctions. Combined, these measures will affect copyright enforcement, industrial property rights, trade secrets, AI training data, product provenance, online takedowns, valuation of counterfeit goods and electronic evidence. It is worth noting that, in addition to strengthening criminal penalties for IP crimes, Vietnam’s emerging regulatory framework increasingly treats infringement, data misuse, product authentication, and platform-enabled violations as interconnected regulatory and enforcement challenges. For rights holders and foreign investors, this could mean stronger tools against counterfeiting and online infringement, but also more compliance obligations around data, traceability, AI, platform controls and government-facing reporting. Expansion of Criminal IP Enforcement Proposed amendments to Article 225 of the Criminal Code would expand criminal copyright exposure beyond reproduction and distribution to cover large-scale commercial public performance and online communication of works, phonograms and video recordings. This is important because piracy is increasingly about streaming, unauthorized communication, and platform access models rather than physical copying. Aggravated copyright infringement could be subject to up to 10 years in prison for individuals and fines of up to VND 6 billion (about USD 228,300) for commercial legal entities. The amended Article 226 would expand criminal industrial property liability beyond
Read More
September 21, 2026
Thailand’s first-to-file trademark system has a serious vulnerability: it lacks both an explicit mechanism for refusing bad-faith registrations and any means of invalidating them in court after the five-year limitation period has expired. While brand owners worldwide confront trademark squatting, Thailand’s statutory silence stands out, particularly in light of AIPPI’s 2017 Resolution Q249, which recommended that every jurisdiction provide clear tools to address bad faith at all stages of the trademark lifecycle. Nearly a decade later, Thailand has yet to act. This article proposes a concrete reform blueprint, drawing on the legislative models of China, the United Kingdom, and the European Union. The Statutory Gap Under the Thai Trademark Act B.E. 2534, no provision expressly authorizes examiners to reject an application on grounds of bad faith. Section 8(10) addresses well-known marks but offers no relief where the targeted mark lacks well-known status. Practitioners have resorted to Section 8(9)—which bars marks “contrary to public order, morality, or public policy”—as a workaround. However, this provision was designed to address the characteristics of the mark itself, not the applicant’s intent. Thai Supreme Court decisions have split on whether it can reach bad-faith conduct, creating persistent legal uncertainty. The gap extends beyond examination. Civil actions to cancel a bad-faith registration must be brought within five years—a deadline that frequently expires before foreign brand owners discover the squatted mark. Cancellation through the Board of Trademarks remains available but is slow, costly, and subject to court appeal, leaving bad-faith registrations in force during protracted proceedings. The system effectively rewards squatters and penalizes legitimate owners. Lessons from International Best Practices Several major jurisdictions have already closed this gap. China’s 2019 amendment to Article 4 of the Trademark Law introduced an absolute ground for refusal: “bad faith trademark applications without intent to use shall be rejected.” Bad
Read More
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