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

August 29, 2012

Keys for Successful Raid Actions in Vietnam

Informed Counsel

Infringement of intellectual property rights (IPRs) continues to be a major area of concern for international brand owners operating in Vietnam. In their fight against fake goods in the country, IPR holders often need to carry out administrative raids which can be very effective in suppressing counterfeit products, but are also fraught with potential hurdles. IPR holders therefore need to carefully plan their raid actions to minimize risk and maximize the suppression effect in the market. The following tips provide the basis for carrying out effective raid actions in Vietnam.

Collect Evidence

When IPR holders suspect counterfeiting, they should first conduct a thorough investigation to confirm the existence and extent of the counterfeiting. IPR holders will not be able to challenge any putative infringers without clear, concrete evidence. The evidence can take the form of photos of the fake goods on display, details of the scope and location of the infringement, and other relevant background information, which can only be collected through a serious investigation.

Choose the Right Enforcement Body

Vietnam has quite an extensive variety of authorities that are entitled to suppress counterfeiting. These include the Inspectorate of the Ministry of Science and Technology, the Inspectorate of the Ministry of Culture, the police, Market Control Force, and Customs. Unlike legal actions against copycats, these authorities can take actions against counterfeit goods on an ex officio basis without any request from the IPR holder.

With so many options, IPR holders must identify the most suitable authority to tackle each case. Typically, if the infringement is committed on a large scale and in a complex manner, enforcement bodies at the central (national) level should be chosen. These authorities are more interested in raiding major counterfeiters (manufacturers, importers, distributors, etc.) than small-scale shops. In lower-profile cases, authorities at the provincial level are the most suitable choice.

IPR holders should also try to determine whether the authority or the officials who are likely to handle the case have any relationship with the suspected infringers. In practice, some administrative raids fall flat due to leakage of information on the raids, which may be the result of those relationships.

Verify the Counterfeits

It is essential for IPR holders to prepare all necessary documents relating to the verification of fake goods during the enforcement actions. Usually, such documents are declarations by IPR holders stating that the goods found in the raid are indeed fake. However, in complex cases which involve a large quantity of counterfeits or where the differences between counterfeits and genuine goods cannot easily be recognized by the naked eye, IPR holders should dispatch at least one expert on their products to oversee the raid and help the authorities verify the goods on the spot.

Prepare for Countermeasures

IPR holders need to prepare themselves for any countermeasures that the infringers may employ. Infringers are usually poised with different counteractions intended to make life difficult for the IPR owner, such as an invalidation of the trademark registration or a counterattack based on any errors or oversights made by the IPR holder or the competent authority in the course of enforcing rights.

Support the Authorities

IPR holders should be ready to cover certain costs and expenses (transportation and storage of seized goods, etc.), which may arise during the raid or the case follow-up. As statutorily provided, IPR holders have the right to assist the competent authority in legal actions at their own expense. While this is not required, it is of great importance in rendering a smooth resolution of the case.

Expect the Unexpected

While some counterfeiters are simply ignorant of the law, most are fully aware that their actions are illegal and could lead to punishment. It is not in their interest to cooperate with an IPR holder’s investigation or raid, and they may even have a well-developed list of emergency measures to thwart the IPR holder’s efforts.

This is particularly evident with computer software. In practice, infringers of software hardly ever store the unlicensed copies in large quantities. They only write the software from a computer to blank disks upon the orders of customers, in which case the competent authorities fail to seize any software as the infringer permanently deletes it from their computers right at the time of the raid. Sometimes software dealers, particularly end users, will even interrupt the raid with a planned power cut, resulting in a fiasco. IPR holders therefore need to plan for all possible contingencies ahead of the raid.

Launch a PR Campaign

When a case comes to a conclusion, the brand owner may launch a public relations campaign not only to raise customer awareness, but also to deter potential infringers from targeting the brand. PR actions are particularly effective in cases where infringement is widespread (for example, in computer software infringement), or where the infringer has a large and well-known operation.

Monitor the Market

One successful raid does not mean that the battle against counterfeiters comes to an end. In fact, brand owners must keep an eye on the market to identify any recidivism committed by the sanctioned infringer or new entrants into the counterfeits market. By virtue of this market monitoring, the brand owner can take immediate action to address new infringement before it spreads.

Summary

Counterfeits take a toll on IPR holders’ and the public’s legitimate rights and interests, and thus have always been severely punished. During the administrative resolution of the case, if the act of counterfeiting is found to constitute a crime, counterfeiters in Vietnam can be criminally prosecuted.

Although the methods above do not guarantee successful enforcement, they work well and place IPR holders in a better position to overcome obstacles that may arise during enforcement actions. Ultimately, IPR holders need to be thorough, well prepared, and keep an even keel in any situation.

RELATED INSIGHTS​ 

August 10, 2026
Thailand has finalized its social media KYC (“know your customer”) rules under Notification of the Electronic Transactions Commission on Measures to Prevent Technological Crimes for Social Media Service Providers (No. 2), which was published in the Government Gazette on May 5, 2026, and will take effect on November 1, 2026. While an early draft of the notification proposed requiring social media platforms to arrange identification of every user account, the final notification is significantly more targeted, focusing on paid online advertising and advertiser identity verification. Though the regulatory initiative primarily aims to combat online fraud and technology-related crimes, it also has important consequences for intellectual property enforcement, because the verified platform records that will be generated under the new requirements can help IP rights holders to identify anonymous online infringers. Key Regulatory Mandates The notification requires social media service providers to verify the identity of advertisers before their paid advertisements are published and disseminated in Thailand through social media, regardless of whether the advertising fees come from the advertisers or third parties. Verification of an advertiser is valid for one year, after which verification would have to be performed again before the platform could publish additional paid advertisements from the advertiser. Permitted verification methods are specified under the notification. A platform may verify an advertiser by checking identity evidence and confirming the connection between the advertiser and that identity evidence, with the notification giving facial comparison against certain government-issued identity documents as an example. Alternatively, platforms may verify advertisers through a digital identity verification and authentication system with an identity-proofing assurance level not lower than the level prescribed by Thailand’s Electronic Transactions Commission. The notification further requires platforms to retain only the advertiser’s information necessary to identify the advertiser, beginning from the start of the advertising activity and for
August 6, 2026
Introduction: A Trademark Paradox in Sustainable Packaging Walk into any Thai supermarket, and the label-free water bottle is no longer a novelty. Thailand’s packaging market, valued at approximately USD 15.68 billion in 2025, is shifting toward minimalist, plastic-light designs as ESG pressures reshape how brands present their products. The country generated roughly 5.68 million tons of plastic waste in 2021, with a recycling rate of only 19 percent, and regulators are now considering rules that would allow label-free bottled water relying on embossing, laser printing, or QR codes instead of wrap-around labels. As packaging itself becomes the brand identifier, a paradox emerges: designs built to say the least often struggle hardest for protection under Thai intellectual property law. The Trademark Barrier: When Shape Is Not Enough Section 7, paragraph 2(10) of the Thai Trademark Act deems a shape distinctive only if it is not the natural form of the goods, is not necessary to achieve a technical result, and does not add value to the goods. The Department of Intellectual Property’s 2022 examination guidelines apply this test conservatively, as the following examples illustrate. A plain water bottle relying on subtle contours to signal its brand is typically read as just another bottle, not a source identifier. Acquired distinctiveness offers a theoretical escape route, but it demands extensive evidence of sales, advertising, and consumer recognition—an especially heavy burden for new entrants whose minimalist packaging has not yet achieved market prominence. The result is a structural bias against precisely the design innovation that sustainability goals are meant to encourage. Design Patents: A Partial, Imperfect Substitute Design patent protection, covering a product’s shape, configuration, or ornamentation, appears to offer an alternative route. In practice, it is constrained by the same forces driving the minimalist trend. Because many brands converge on similar solutions—clear
August 4, 2026
Intellectual property (IP) protection sometimes hinges on fame and recognition. However, this alone will not always be sufficient to overcome an IP dispute when it involves contractual obligations or registered rights. Below are five cases from around the world that tackle some of the basic issues in IP registration, ownership, commercialization, and enforcement. 1. USA: Taylor Swift Trademark Application Refused Taylor Swift recently filed a trademark application to register “The Life of a Showgirl,” which is the title of her 12th studio album. When examining a trademark application, the examiner considers various factors before deciding whether it should be registered. One of these factors is whether there is a likelihood of confusion (i.e., would a regular consumer mistake the origin of the trademark). In Taylor Swift’s case, the US Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO) decided that that there would be a risk of confusion. This decision was based on the existing registered trademark, “Confessions of a Showgirl,” owned by Maren Wade, which was registered in 2015. The USPTO refused Taylor Swift’s application based on the shared key distinctive element “of a showgirl,” the lack of sufficient distinguishing terms, the marks being used in overlapping markets (entertainment and performances), and because consumers may assume a common commercial source. Maren Wade then filed a lawsuit in California against Taylor Swift and her affiliated companies, arguing that Taylor Swfit’s branding is confusingly similar in structure, wording, and overall commercial impression to her registered mark. She is also drawing on the USPTO’s refusal of Taylor Swift’s application to support her argument of a likelihood of confusion. A judgment has not yet been reached in this case, but it serves as an important reminder of the importance of satisfying the essential elements required for IP registration. 2. Australia: Katy Perry v. Katie Perry In
July 27, 2026
Vietnam’s new E-Commerce Law, which took effect on 1 July 2026 along with its implementing Decree No. 248/2026/ND-CP (Decree 248), marks a significant development in the country’s approach to online intellectual property (IP) enforcement, reflecting a clear shift from a reactive model of intermediary liability to one that expects platforms to play a more active role in preventing infringement. From notice-and-takedown to platform responsibility The most significant change introduced by the E-Commerce Law is the transformation of the legal role of e-commerce platforms. The existing safe harbor provisions under the IP Law and the copyright notice-and-takedown regime established by Decree 17/2023/ND-CP (Decree 17) largely required intermediaries to act only after receiving notice of infringement. Once infringing content had been removed, the platform’s legal obligation was generally considered fulfilled. The new legislation adopts a fundamentally different approach. Article 17 of the E-Commerce Law requires intermediary platforms to screen information relating to goods and services before publication in order to prevent listings involving counterfeit or IP-infringing goods, and goods of unknown origin. Rather than relying exclusively on complaints from rights holders, platforms are now expected to implement preventive measures before infringing listings become publicly available. Decree 248 further requires platforms to update keyword filters based on recommendations issued by competent authorities. These filtering mechanisms are intended to prevent prohibited listings from appearing on the platform and represent a further move away from a purely complaint-driven enforcement model. The legislation also introduces Vietnam’s first statutory stay-down obligation. Under the E-Commerce Law and Decree 248, major digital platforms must maintain automated systems capable of reviewing, warning against, and removing unlawful listings while also implementing measures to prevent repeat violations, defined under Decree 248 as conduct that has previously been identified and handled by the platform, but continues to recur. This obligation addresses one