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​ 

September 18, 2024
Following the endorsement of the report on the study of opening entertainment complexes by Thailand’s House of Representatives and Cabinet in early 2024, the draft Entertainment Complex Bill, B.E. … (the “Entertainment Complex Bill”) finally became open for public hearing and is now under the consideration of the Ministry of Finance. The Entertainment Complex Bill aims to liberalize and facilitate the establishment of entertainment complexes that include casinos, allowing participation from domestic and foreign investors alike. Key Takeaways Under the Entertainment Complex Bill, an “entertainment complex” is a venue that operates at least four types of entertainment businesses alongside a casino. These may include five-star hotels, restaurants and bars, game centers, and department stores, among others. Based on the information publicly available as of the date of this publication, the Entertainment Complex Bill and its prospective subordinate legislation should encompass the following key requirements. Licensing requirements: Business operators seeking to operate an entertainment complex business must first obtain a license. To qualify, applicants must: (1) be a company incorporated in Thailand and (2) have a minimum paid-up capital of THB 10 billion. This license will operate as a “super license” covering not only casino activities but also other operations within the complex, such as hotels, restaurants, bars, and game centers, which, under normal circumstances, may require separate licenses or permits. The license will be valid for 30 years and may be renewed for an additional 10-year term upon expiration. The license fees may depend on the location of the entertainment complex. Minimum investment requirements: Based on the preparatory works by the drafting committee, entertainment complex business licenses may be classified into four different categories based on the size of the investment: small, medium, large, and extra-large. At this stage, licenses for the extra-large category, requiring an investment of THB
Read More
September 9, 2024
The popularity of the franchise business model has been growing rapidly in Southeast Asia in recent years, with some of the world’s top brands becoming common sights in the commercial districts and shopping malls of major regional cities in Cambodia, Indonesia, Laos, Myanmar, Thailand, and Vietnam. While for most countries in this part of the world, franchising has not been explicitly mentioned in legislation, well prepared franchise business operations can comfortably adapt to each country’s regulatory framework, and the growth is poised to continue even as the global retail sector redesigns and redoubles its efforts in the wake of the COVID-19 outbreak. In fact, the franchise business model, which is both global and hyper-local at once, is one of the most promising solutions that entrepreneurs are turning to in their quest to overcome the challenges of the new economic reality. The Regional Guide to Franchising Law in Southeast Asia provides key, up-to-date insights into the legal frameworks regulating franchise operations in these Southeast Asian countries, and helps brand owners understand the most relevant laws, authorities, and procedures for their business. Some of the essential topics covered for each jurisdiction include considerations in negotiating and designing franchise agreements, protecting intellectual property rights, and important information on judicial and arbitral procedures should a dispute arise between franchisor and franchisee. Practitioners from Tilleke & Gibbins’ offices in Cambodia, Indonesia, Laos, Myanmar, Thailand, and Vietnam contributed to guide—not only by providing legal expertise on the laws and mechanisms applicable in each jurisdiction, but also by examining strategies for establishing and running resilient franchise operations in Southeast Asia. The full guide can be accessed as a PDF through the button below.
Read More
August 30, 2024
As in many other countries, registered trademarks in Indonesia that are not used for a given period of time can be canceled. A recent decision (Decision No. 144/PUU-XXI/2023) from the country’s Constitutional Court has extended the non-use cancellation period from three years to five years, applicable from July 30, 2024. This ruling could have a major impact on trademark holders in the country. Background of the Case Article 74 of Indonesia’s Trademark Law of 2016 specifies that trademarks can be canceled if they go unused in the trade of goods or services for three consecutive years from the date of registration or last use. This provision is aligned with the Paris Convention and the TRIPs Agreement. On October 27, 2023, an Indonesian individual named Ricky Thio asked the Constitutional Court to examine the constitutionality of Article 74, arguing that it opened a pathway for third parties to eliminate trademarks owned by small and medium-sized enterprises (SMEs), and did not provide certainty to his registered trademark in terms of the period of protection. Additionally, he argued that the period of three consecutive years was burdensome for SMEs, and asked the court to void Article 74 and add force majeure circumstances—such as Covid-19—as an exemption to non-use cancellation. Mr. Thio submitted this request while he was defending his trademark registration from a non-use cancellation request filed by Zhejiang Dahua Technology Co., Ltd. In his defense to that cancellation request, Mr. Thio explained that the non-use of the trademark was due to the Covid-19 pandemic. The cancellation case followed a different judicial pathway, and was under appeal before the Supreme Court at the time Mr. Thio filed his request for judicial review with the Constitutional Court. Mr. Thio’s case also attracted the submission of an amicus brief—a relatively new trend in Indonesia—from
Read More
August 30, 2024
In 2023, Vietnam’s Intellectual Property Rights Infringement Prevention Cooperation Program reported that 776 cases of IPR infringement were resolved nationwide. Of these, 546 were addressed through administrative measures, while criminal proceedings were initiated in just five cases. These statistics clearly show that administrative measures overwhelmingly dominate the response to counterfeit goods, with criminal actions being relatively rare. This raises an intriguing question: Why do IPR holders prefer administrative routes over criminal measures in Vietnam? And what challenges and obstacles make criminal enforcement less commonly pursued in these cases? Overlapping legal provisions Under Vietnam’s Penal Code, two key offenses address counterfeit goods: Manufacturing and trading in counterfeit goods under Article 192. Manufacturing and trading in industrial property rights-infringing goods under Article 226. Both provisions regulate counterfeit goods, yet they suffer from a lack of clear definitions and guidelines for application. Article 192 does not explicitly define “counterfeit goods”. Instead, authorities refer to Article 3.7 of Decree No. 98/2020/ND-CP, as amended, which outlines several categories of counterfeit goods, including: (i) utility counterfeits (goods not meeting normal expectations of usage or function), (ii) substandard goods, (iii) counterfeit goods based on misrepresentation, and (iv) counterfeit stamps, labels, and packaging. Meanwhile, Article 226 specifically deals with counterfeit goods that infringe trademark rights. These “trademark-counterfeit goods” are defined under Article 213.2 of the IP Law as goods or packaging bearing trademarks or signs that are identical or confusingly similar to protected trademarks for the same goods, used without the trademark owner’s permission. In this regard, “counterfeit goods” and “trademark-counterfeit goods” are treated as distinct, non-overlapping concepts, each corresponding to a separate offense. However, in practice, there is often a gray area where the two overlap. Many cases involve infringing goods that meet the criteria for both categories, allowing authorities to apply both regulations simultaneously. For
Read More