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​ 

June 22, 2026
Arbitrator independence and impartiality form the cornerstone of a legitimate arbitral process. Under section 19 of the Thai Arbitration Act B.E. 2545 (2002), prospective arbitrators must disclose circumstances likely to give rise to justifiable doubts as to their impartiality or independence, and existing arbitrators must do so throughout proceedings. This mirrors article 12 of the UNCITRAL Model Law. Yet despite this clear mandate, practical implementation varies significantly across Thailand’s arbitration landscape. Background Thailand’s two principal arbitration institutions, the Thai Arbitration Institute (TAI) and the Thailand Arbitration Center (THAC), both maintain procedures for addressing arbitrator challenges and require compliance with the statutory disclosure obligation. Under both sets of rules, any party wishing to challenge an arbitrator must submit a challenge application within fifteen days of becoming aware of the relevant facts, and a committee is appointed to consider the matter on a case-by-case basis. The TAI additionally prescribes its Code of Ethics and Conduct for Arbitrators to further emphasize the expectation of impartiality and transparency. However, Thailand’s arbitration ecosystem extends well beyond the TAI and THAC. Several sector-specific institutions also administer arbitral proceedings, including the Thai Commercial Arbitration Office under the Board of Trade of Thailand, the Arbitration Centre of the Office of the Insurance Commission, the Arbitration Centre of the Securities and Exchange Commission, the Office for the Prevention and Resolution of Disputes regarding Intellectual Property, and the Arbitration Centre of the Thai General Insurance Association. These institutions each operate under their own procedural rules, which were developed to serve particular industries and dispute profiles. The procedural mechanisms for securing and documenting an independence declaration are not uniformly established across these forums. Consequences of Procedural Inconsistency This creates a notable gap. Not all arbitration bodies have a formalized procedure requiring written independence statements before proceedings commence. Some tribunals proceed
Read More
June 16, 2026
The president of Thailand’s Supreme Court has issued new recommendations providing courts with criminal jurisdiction with a comprehensive framework for identifying and dismissing criminal cases brought in bad faith. Published in the Government Gazette on May 29, 2026, after being signed on May 25, the Recommendations of the President of the Supreme Court Concerning Bad-Faith Litigation in Criminal Cases B.E. 2569 were issued under Section 5 of the Act on the Organization of Courts of Justice. The recommendations took effect upon publication and represent a significant step in Thailand’s efforts to curb abusive criminal litigation, including strategic lawsuits against public participation (SLAPP). Background Section 161/1 of Thailand’s Criminal Procedure Code empowers courts to dismiss criminal cases filed dishonestly or with the intent to harass or take unfair advantage of a defendant. The new recommendations provide detailed guidance that courts previously lacked on identifying and handling such prosecutions. Definition of Bad-Faith Litigation Under recommendation 1, filing a criminal case in bad faith is defined broadly to encompass three categories: Harassment-type filings involving intimidation, threats, or creating unreasonable hardship for the defendant; Coercive filings designed to pressure the defendant into acting or refraining from acting for illegitimate benefit; and False or misleading filings that deliberately assert incorrect material facts or conceal such facts. Circumstances Indicating Bad Faith Recommendation 2 sets out specific circumstances that should raise a court’s suspicion that a filing may violate section 161/1. These include: Filing in a distant court far from the defendant’s domicile without benefiting the adjudication; Retaliation against the defendant’s advocacy for human rights, environmental protection, consumer rights, labor rights, or other public interests—effectively establishing an express anti-SLAPP framework; Retaliation against whistleblowers who disclosed corruption or unlawful conduct; Retaliation against individuals responsible for investigating the plaintiff’s wrongdoing or who concluded such an investigation; Filing multiple
Read More
June 16, 2026
Since the implementation of the Trademark Law 2019 on April 1, 2023, Myanmar has operated under a modern first-to-file trademark system that brings its registration framework closer to international practice. As the new regime continues to develop in practice, applicants are increasingly required to navigate formal examination requirements, substantive objections, and procedural deadlines with greater precision. This article provides a high-level review of the trademark examination process in Myanmar, focusing on the principal stages from initial review to approval, the types of objections commonly raised by the Intellectual Property Department (IPD), and the key considerations for responding effectively. A clear understanding of these issues is essential for applicants seeking to secure registration efficiently and to mitigate avoidable delays or refusals. Examination Process: Key Stages Trademark applications filed with the IPD undergo two stages of review. Formality Examination The IPD first verifies compliance with procedural requirements, including: Correct Nice Classification Clear mark representation Accurate applicant details Clearly defined goods or services Representative details, if the application is filed by a representative Other formality requirements cover translation and transliteration of any non-English or non-Myanmar elements in the mark, color claim details, applicable disclaimers, and payment of official fees. Deficiencies result in an office action requiring correction within 30 days, which may be extended upon request. Registrability Examination The IPD also assesses registrability. A mark may be refused if it: Lacks distinctiveness Is descriptive or generic Misleads the public or violates public order/morality Contains prohibited state symbols Only compliant applications proceed to publication. Responding to Office Actions Applicants must respond within 30 days of notification from the IPD. Depending on the nature of the objection, strategies may include submitting legal arguments for distinctiveness, providing evidence of acquired distinctiveness, filing appropriate disclaimers, clarifying descriptions such as color claims, or amending the listed goods
Read More
June 15, 2026
The surge in AI development has led to a desperate demand for large, high-quality training data. However, real-world data can be expensive to collect, difficult to access, and often subject to strict privacy and regulatory constraints. Synthetic data, which consists of artificially generated records that replicate the statistical properties of real-world data without reproducing specific individuals’ information, provides an appealing solution by generating artificial datasets at scale without relying on identifiable personal information. It combines speed, cost efficiency, and regulatory compliance, making it a sensible alternative for organizations seeking to reduce risks while maintaining data utility. When properly anonymized, synthetic datasets may fall outside the scope of laws such as the EU’s General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR) or Thailand’s Personal Data Protection Act (PDPA), reducing compliance burdens while still supporting high-quality model training. However, relying on synthetic data without rigorous legal due diligence could be a strategic mistake. It replaces one set of known risks (scraping, direct privacy liability) with a new set of complex liabilities. The narrative that synthetic data is a “silver bullet” for privacy and IP compliance is dangerous and could be misleading. While synthetic data addresses data scarcity, it also introduces new legal uncertainties. Legal counsel should anticipate downstream risks arising from compromised data sources. Models trained on unlawfully obtained data may need to be decommissioned, even if their outputs appear lawful. What is synthetic data? Synthetic data refers to artificially generated information created using AI techniques such as deep learning and generative models. Instead of copying real records, it reproduces the statistical patterns and relationships found in the original dataset. Synthetic data generally falls into three categories: Fully synthetic data – Entirely new data points generated from learned patterns. The model studies the structure of the original data and produces records that resemble real-world
Read More