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​ 

July 21, 2026
Thailand’s Ministry of Digital Economy and Society (MDES) published a notification establishing an expedited court-ordered takedown mechanism for online content in cases of “urgent necessity.” The notification, which was issued on July 17, 2026, under the Computer Crime Act B.E. 2550 (2007), as amended, took effect the following day. It significantly expands the categories of content subject to rapid government-initiated removal. Content Categories Subject to Takedown The notification defines “urgent necessity” (section 20, paragraph 5, of the Computer Crime Act) as circumstances where any delay in suppressing computer data may impact national security, religion, the monarchy, good morals, social culture, or public order. In this regard, it establishes four broad categories of content: Computer Crime Act offenses. National security offenses. IP and other criminal offenses, where it is contrary to public order or good morals and a competent officer has requested its suppression. Content contrary to public order or good morals, a broad residual category encompassing 14 subcategories approved by the Computer Data Screening Committee. The fourth category is the most expansive. Its 14 subcategories include: Content defaming, mocking, satirizing, or devaluing the monarchy. Online gambling advertising or facilitation. Offering illegal firearms for sale. Offering baraku (hookah) products or e-cigarettes for sale. Offering cannabis inflorescences or processed cannabis products for sale. Advertising or soliciting prostitution. Content inciting violence, hatred, or social division. Unauthorized overseas employment advertising. Offering boiled kratom juice for sale. Online sale or advertising of alcoholic beverages. Content satirizing or degrading Buddhism. Money lending at interest rates exceeding legally prescribed limits. Advertising or disseminating information about surrogacy services. Forgery of documents, cards, or official documents. Enforcement Procedure In cases of urgent necessity, a competent official assigned by the MDES permanent secretary must file a petition with supporting evidence to the court with jurisdiction, requesting an order to
Read More
July 15, 2026
Ambush marketing refers to a strategy in which a business associates itself with an event, campaign, or brand without paying for official sponsorship rights. The tactic is most visible in sports, concerts, and festivals, where official sponsors have invested substantially for exclusivity. Ambush marketers may use suggestive wording, event-themed imagery, athlete endorsements, venue-adjacent promotions, or social media campaigns implying a commercial connection with the event. Common Forms of Ambush Marketing Ambush marketing typically takes one of the following forms: Direct ambushing: using event names, logos, or mascots suggesting authorization Coattail ambushing: sponsoring an athlete or broadcaster connected with the event Subtle ambushing: themed advertising, venue-adjacent campaigns, or similar visual cues The legal analysis in each case turns on whether the marketing crosses from permissible event-based advertising into infringement, passing off, deception, or wrongful exploitation of goodwill, and the risk assessment is necessarily fact-specific. Thailand has no dedicated ambush marketing statute, so legality depends on execution. A campaign that merely comments on a public event may be permissible, but one that uses protected marks, creates consumer confusion, misrepresents sponsorship status, or makes unsubstantiated claims may trigger liability under various Thai laws, as laid out below. Ambush Marketing and Thailand’s Trademark Act The Trademark Act B.E. 2534 (1991) is the primary tool for addressing campaigns that use registered trademarks, event names, logos, mascots, or confusingly similar signs. The law gives registered trademark owners the exclusive right to use their mark for registered goods, and infringement risk arises when a nonsponsor uses an event mark or a confusingly similar sign in advertising. Even referential or playful use may create liability if it causes public confusion as to sponsorship or commercial connection. The law also preserves passing-off claims for unregistered marks. This matters because event names, taglines, or mascots may not always be
Read More
July 13, 2026
When Decree No. 186/2026/ND-CP (Decree 186) takes effect on July 15, 2026, it will introduce the most significant reform of Vietnam’s administrative IP enforcement framework since Decree 99/2013/ND-CP was issued in 2013. These changes are expected to make administrative enforcement faster, more accessible, and better suited to the realities of modern IP disputes. Below are the principal reforms and their practical implications for rights holders and enforcement practitioners. The End of Notarization and Consular Legalization Among the most welcome procedural changes is the abolition of the notarization and consular legalization requirement for powers of attorney (POA) submitted in administrative enforcement proceedings. Under the previous regime, foreign rights holders were generally required to execute a POA, then have it notarized and consular legalized (if seeking customs recordal). In practice, this process frequently delayed enforcement by four to eight weeks, often long enough for infringing goods to disappear before authorities could intervene. Decree 186 removes this bottleneck, now requiring only an original or certified copy of the POA. If the document is in a foreign language, a Vietnamese translation is sufficient, provided it is certified by a competent authority or confirmed by the authorized Vietnamese IP representative. Consular legalization and notarization are no longer required. For rights holders, the practical impact is substantial. Administrative enforcement files that previously took weeks to prepare can now be completed in a matter of days, allowing much faster responses in time-sensitive matters such as warehouse raids, border interventions, and trade-fair enforcement. The decree also introduces a useful administrative simplification. Where an original POA has already been submitted to the same enforcement authority and remains valid, applicants may rely on a copy of that earlier submission by identifying the previous case file. This eliminates unnecessary duplication for rights holders pursuing multiple enforcement actions before the same
Read More
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