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

Subscribe to Updates
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.

Download Full Article
Related Professionals

Practices

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