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

October 2, 2014

Judgment Triggers Changes to Court Litigation in Vietnam

Subscribe to Updates
Managing Intellectual Property

On August 28, 2014, the Ho Chi Minh City Court entered a judgment in an IP rights dispute that could herald significant changes to civil litigation in the IP field in Vietnam, influencing the way other courts deal with claims of damage compensation and attorney’s fees in IP cases.

The Dispute

The dispute arose between U.S.-based Videojet Technologies Inc., a major player in ink and printing equipment for industrial purposes, and Nam Trinh JSC, which had been an authorized distributor of Videojet-branded products in Vietnam until its contract was terminated in 2012. Despite the termination, Nam Trinh continued to present itself as an authorized Videojet distributor on its websites, and even used Videojet’s registered trademarks in its means of business, without any consent from Videojet. The company was also suspected of distributing fake Videojet products.

Videojet asked Tilleke & Gibbins for a strategy to crack down on the infringement and compel Nam Trinh to pay compensation for the damages incurred. In September 2012, the market control forces in both Hanoi and Ho Chi Minh City conducted a series of administrative raids upon Nam Trinh’s offices in the two cities, resulting in the confiscation and destruction of fake products. This administrative action succeeded in deterring Nam Trinh from trading in infringing products bearing Videojet’s trademarks.

Videojet then filed a lawsuit against Nam Trinh to seek compensation for damages and attorney’s fees, as well as a public apology for the trademark infringement. The evidence gathered during the administrative action would turn out to be of great importance in calculating the actual damages Videojet incurred from Nam Trinh’s encroachment.

Difficulties in Calculation of Damages

Though intellectual property protection was introduced to Vietnam long ago, civil litigation in the field is still in its infancy. There have been very few cases handled by the local courts, so these courts have not had the opportunity to develop IP expertise. In addition, the small number of resolved cases has led to a lack of precedents, so the courts have not had any prototype on which they can rely to determine the damages resulting from IP infringement.

In the Videojet case, it was not easy to gauge the actual damages caused by the counterfeiting, including the loss of profits as well as the loss of business opportunity. Videojet was additionally in no position to identify how many counterfeits had been sold by Nam Trinh before the raid actions took place. In the end, Videojet resorted to using the value of the goods which had been seized (approximately USD 1,500) plus the legal fees they paid for the 2012 raid actions to determine rough damages of just under USD 10,000—one of the largest amounts ever sought by a brand holder in Vietnam.

In practice, such approaches have not consistently worked in Vietnam, and have even been dismissed by some courts. In a substantially similar case, First News Publisher v. Huy Thi Enterprise, which was tried by two courts in Hanoi, the court observed that since the counterfeit goods in question (books) were seized at the infringer’s warehouse before they were ever distributed to the market, the goods did not cause any damages to the copyright owner. Therefore, the court ruled in favor of the infringing producer and dismissed the plaintiff’s claim for damages. Such a ruling made it virtually impossible to prove damages in the absence of sales records and other facts.

In the Videojet case, in addition to the damages, Videojet also sought a recovery of its attorney’s fees of USD 10,000 for the suit. This was the highest amount that plaintiffs had ever claimed in Vietnam. To that point, the record legal fees ever awarded by local courts was around USD 2,000.

Potential Changes Lie Ahead

At the trial conducted on August 28, just one day after the disappointing judgment in the First News case, the Ho Chi Minh City Court ruled in favor of Videojet, awarding damages of nearly USD 10,000—the full amount that Videojet sought—and an additional USD 10,000 in attorney’s fees.

Unlike the two courts in Hanoi in the First News case, the Ho Chi Minh City Court observed that the seized products came at the plaintiff’s expense even though they were not distributed into the market. Without records on sales volume of the counterfeits, the damage caused was deemed to be at least equivalent to the value of the seized products. The court also considered the legal fees Videojet incurred to stage the raid actions to be damages resulting from the counterfeiting of the defendant.

The ruling of the court in terms of damages was not only a victory for Videojet, but could become a model for other judicial bodies to follow in calculating damages and attorney’s fees under civil action. As well, the award of the attorney’s fees, the highest in the history of court litigation in Vietnam to the best of our knowledge, may fortify other courts’ determination to decree higher amounts of reasonable legal fees, easing the cost burden on plaintiffs when commencing civil litigation. This should be viewed as a positive trend for the enforcement climate in Vietnam.

Download Full Article
Related Professionals

Practices

Dispute Resolution and Litigation

Intellectual Property

Location

RELATED INSIGHTS​ 

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
September 7, 2026
Indonesia’s Constitutional Court (Mahkamah Konstitusi) has reinstated a key provision limiting pharmaceutical patent protection, signaling a renewed commitment to balancing patent rights with public access to medicines. In its ruling to Case No. 255/PUU-XXIII/2025, the court partially granted a petition for judicial review of Law No. 65 of 2024, which had amended the country’s Patent Law, and ordered the restoration of a provision that had excluded certain pharmaceutical inventions from patentability. The decision took effect immediately upon its pronouncement at the court’s plenary session on August 28, 2026. Background The petition challenged the removal of article 4(f) from Law No. 13 of 2016 concerning Patents (Patent Law), as amended by Law No. 65 of 2024. Article 4(f) had excluded from patentability certain inventions relating to new uses of known substances. The petitioners argued that removing this provision would open the door to patent protection for second medical use inventions and facilitate patent evergreening—practices that can extend exclusivity periods, delay generic market entry, and reduce public access to affordable medicines. The petitioners included several patient advocacy and public-interest organizations: the Indonesian Dialysis Patients Community Association, the Indonesian Association of Drug Abuse Victims (PKNI), the Indonesian Pulmonary Hypertension Foundation (YHPI), the Rekat Peduli Indonesia Foundation, and the Indonesian Positive Women’s Association (IPPI), along with the Indonesia for Global Justice Association and four individual petitioners. The petitioners also challenged the constitutionality of the phrase “interested party” in article 70(1) of the Patent Law, arguing that it should be construed expressly to clarify who has standing to appeal a decision to grant a patent before the Board of Patent Appeal, and to allow a broader range of parties—such as patent holders, licensees, consumer organizations, prosecutors, aggrieved third parties, and others who may suffer direct or indirect harm from the grant of a patent—to
Read More
September 4, 2026
Thailand’s cabinet has approved two draft amendments aimed at improving labor-related judicial proceedings. The proposed amendments to the Act on the Establishment of Labor Courts and Labor Case Procedure B.E. 2522 (1979) and the Act on Procedures for Human Trafficking Cases B.E. 2559 (2016) are intended to make the process more efficient, appropriate, and fair. Key elements of these proposed amendments are outlined below. Expansion of Labor Court Jurisdiction Under the current framework, labor courts generally hear labor disputes, while criminal offenses under labor laws are handled separately. Matters involving both labor and criminal issues may therefore require the parties to pursue proceedings before different courts. To address this, the proposed amendments would expand the jurisdiction of labor courts to cover certain criminal offenses under labor laws. The government states that the change is intended to allow related issues to be heard by judges with expertise in labor law and to reduce the need for parallel proceedings. The proposed amendments also set out the following rules for cases involving multiple offenses. Where a single act gives rise to multiple offenses and at least one of those offenses falls within the jurisdiction of the labor court, the labor court may hear the related offenses as part of the same case. Where multiple connected acts give rise to different offenses, the labor court may hear the matters together or transfer part of the case to the appropriate court, taking into account convenience and the interests of justice. Criminal Offenses Covered The proposed amendments would extend labor court jurisdiction to criminal offenses under 11 labor-related laws, including laws concerning: Home workers protection Labor protection Labor protection in fisheries work Employment and job-seeker protection Management of foreign workers Social security Occupational safety, health, and working environment Compensation Maritime labor State enterprise labor relations
Read More