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

September 25, 2012

Getting the Deal Through – Franchise 2013, Vietnam Chapter

Subscribe to Updates
Law Business Research

With regulatory changes occurring in Vietnam to promote foreign investment, familiarity with the law on franchising in Vietnam is imperative to strategic decision-making for all types of investors, ranging from foreign companies to entrepreneurs. Getting the Deal Through has published a multi-jurisdictional guide to franchising in 33 different countries worldwide. The Vietnam chapter was written by Thom Thi Mai Nguyen and Huong Thi Thanh Nguyen, attorneys-at-law at the Tilleke & Gibbins corporate and commercial team in Vietnam, and covers the following:

A general overview: the forms of business entities that are relevant to the typical franchisor, the laws and agencies governing the formation of business entities, and the relevant aspects of the real estate market.

Legal requirements: The requirements for forming and maintaining a business entity, any restrictions that may apply to foreign business entities and foreign investments, labor and employment requirements, including any risks involved, and protecting intellectual property, particularly trademarks.

The offer and sale of franchises: The legal definition of a franchise, how the Commercial Law Decree 35/2006/ND-CP and Circular 09/2006/TT-BTM regulate the offer and sale of franchises, with reference to specific provisions and parts of the franchising procedure, any exemptions and exclusions, pre-contractual disclosure laws, a brief description about liabilities in sub-franchising, and what action to take if a franchisor engages in fraudulent practices in connection with the offer and sale of franchises.

Legal restrictions on terms of franchise contracts and the franchise relationship: Specific laws regulating the franchise relationship, even after the contract comes into effect, and the effect of intellectual property law, commercial law, real estate law, competition law, and government or trade association policies on the franchise relationship.

Termination of the franchise relationship: The circumstances under which a franchisor may terminate the relationship, including legal restrictions on their ability to do so, circumstances in which a franchisee may terminate the relationship, and renewal of the franchise agreement by the franchisor.

General aspects of the franchise relationship: Whether the franchisor can restrict a franchisee’s ability to transfer ownership interests, laws affecting the nature, amount, or payment of fees, restrictions on the amount of charges on overdue payments, laws regulating the currency of payments, and the law on good faith in the franchise relationship.

Dispute resolution relevant to franchising: A brief overview of the court system, the procedures available for dispute resolution for franchise cases, the advantages and disadvantages of arbitration for foreign franchisors considering business in Vietnam, and the difference between foreign and domestic franchisors.

This edition of Getting the Deal Through – Franchise is one volume in a series of annual reports, all of which provide analysis of key areas of the law globally for corporate counsel and legal practitioners.

Reproduced with permission from Law Business Research Ltd. This article was first published in Getting the Deal Through – Franchise 2013 (published in August 2012; contributing editor: Phil Zeidman of DLA Piper (US) LLP). For further information please visit www.GettingTheDealThrough.com.

Download Full Article
Related Professionals

Practices

Corporate/M&A

Intellectual Property

Location

RELATED INSIGHTS​ 

March 20, 2026
Thailand’s Board of Investment (BOI) now requires data center projects to demonstrate measurable benefits for local workforce development, R&D, SME capability, and domestic supply chains to qualify for corporate income tax (CIT) exemptions. BOI Notification No. Por. 3/2569, issued on February 6, 2026, updates the requirements for projects seeking promotion under BOI category 8.2.1 (data centers). All data center projects must now submit and implement plans covering development of Thai human resources and domestic supply chain support before benefiting from any CIT exemption. Human Resources Development Plan The BOI seeks to promote local talent development beyond basic training. Plans must include the following elements: Training for data center design, construction, and operations targeting vocational students, engineering and ICT undergraduates and postgraduates, and energy and building personnel in Thailand. Joint curricula with Thai universities and technical institutes. Collaborative R&D with Thai nationals or institutions in areas including AI, resource allocation, high-performance computing, and data center hardware and systems. Thai SME upskilling in electrical and energy systems and IT services. Domestic Supply Chain Support Plan Plans must demonstrate knowledge transfer in design, construction, cooling, security, and power and water management. Projects must also include usage or installation of domestically manufactured equipment or engage specialist domestic entities. Criteria for BOI Evaluation The BOI will assess data center operators’ eligibility for CIT incentives based on two criteria: Scale requirement: Training and joint-curriculum initiatives must reach a total participants equal to at least 10 times the project headcount and run for the duration of the CIT incentive. If this threshold is not met, the applicant must also implement continuous R&D or SME skills-development plans throughout the incentive period. Substantiality test: Supply-chain plans must be substantive, meet industry standards, and show measurable development of the domestic digital and data center supply base. To ensure compliance,
Read More
March 16, 2026
Indonesia’s Ministry of Law has introduced a new framework for patent applications that tightens filing requirements and introduces formal mechanisms for accelerated examination. Minister of Law Regulation No. 6 of 2026 on Patent Applications, which was issued on January 13, 2026, and took effect on February 23, 2026, serves as the implementing regulation for Law No. 65 of 2024 on Patents. It replaces the previous patent application framework (under Minister of Law and Human Rights Regulation No. 38 of 2018, as amended by Regulation No. 13 of 2021), which was considered no longer aligned with current legal, institutional, and technological developments. The regulation also reflects the institutional restructuring of the Ministry of Law and Human Rights into the Ministry of Law. Patent applications filed on or after February 23, 2026, must fully comply with the new regulation. Applications that were filed before this date will continue to be examined and processed under the previous regulation, pursuant to transitional provisions. Substantive Changes Definition of Invention The definition of “Invention” now explicitly includes systems, methods, and uses, in addition to products and processes. This expansion creates broader protection opportunities, particularly for software-enabled, digital, and method-based technologies, although it may also result in closer scrutiny during substantive examination. Excess Claims Fee Excess claims fees must now be paid at the time of filing. Failure to pay excess claims fees at filing results in the application being deemed withdrawn. There is no longer an option to defer payment to the substantive examination stage. This amendment forces applicants to face higher upfront costs. Patent claim strategy must be finalized prior to filing, reducing flexibility at later stages. Procedural and System Changes Fully Electronic Filing Patent applications must be filed electronically via the Directorate General of Intellectual Property (DGIP) online filing system. Assisted filings to
Read More
March 13, 2026
For decades, intellectual property rights holders seeking to eliminate counterfeit goods from the Thai market have relied primarily on criminal raid actions to seize infringing products and hold infringers accountable. The deterrent value of this approach is typically threefold: imposing criminal liability on infringers, removing counterfeit goods from circulation, and subjecting violators to imprisonment and fines. However, these outcomes often fall short of fulfilling brand owners’ broader objectives. In many cases, those prosecuted are merely staff or intermediaries rather than the principals orchestrating the infringing operations. Moreover, any fines imposed are remitted to the Thai government—not to the rights holders who have suffered commercial harm and invested substantial resources in investigation and coordination with law enforcement authorities. As in other jurisdictions worldwide, rights holders seeking monetary compensation for IP infringement in Thailand have traditionally pursued separate civil litigation. Before initiating such proceedings, a brand owner must gather sufficient evidence to establish both the infringement and the resulting damages. Notably, Thai law does not recognize punitive damages; courts award only actual damages proven by the claimant. In the absence of seized infringing goods, the damages awarded in such cases are typically minimal. This all leaves rights holders with limited recourse despite possibly having suffered significant commercial injury. In 2005, Thailand amended its Criminal Procedure Code to introduce Section 44/1, which enables rights holders to claim damages within criminal proceedings at the Intellectual Property and International Trade Court prior to the evidentiary hearing. In practice, this mechanism allows an injured party to submit a petition for civil damages directly within the criminal case initiated by the public prosecutor. Historically, rights holders in Thailand have been reluctant to use Section 44/1 because the compensation awarded by courts was often insufficient to justify the effort. However, recent years have seen a notable shift
Read More
March 13, 2026
Vietnam’s Law on Intellectual Property (IP Law) has undergone continuous amendment in recent years, with the latest amendment issued at the end of 2025. Among the amended and supplemented provisions, the regulation that has perhaps attracted the most attention is a provision relating to the use of protected IP objects by artificial intelligence (AI) systems. Specifically, Article 7 of the 2025 IP Law introduces a completely new Clause 5, which reads in full as follows: “Organizations and individuals are permitted to use texts and data relating to intellectual property objects that have been lawfully published, and which the public is allowed to access, for the purposes of scientific research, experimentation, and training of artificial intelligence systems, provided that such use will not unreasonably affect the legitimate rights and interests of the authors and intellectual property rights holders in accordance with this Law. With respect to texts and data that are objects protected by copyright and related rights, the use of the texts and data as set forth herein must also be in accordance with the regulations of the Government.” Analyzing this newly added provision in the context of how it was conceived, as well as the challenges that still lie ahead, can provide some interesting insights. From Aspirations to Flight in Science and Technology From the end of 2024 and throughout 2025—the 50th anniversary of the country’s reunification—Vietnam witnessed numerous sweeping changes in many areas, including legislative development. It could be said that no sessions of the National Assembly have ever adopted as many laws, resolutions, and major policies as this one. The aspirations of the highest-level leadership have been concretized into major law and policy projects, which were drafted, developed, and passed at record speed. All of this was aimed at building a foundation for Vietnam to achieve
Read More