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​ 

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
June 10, 2026
In March 2026, the Intellectual Property Office of Vietnam (IP Office) issued a decision refusing a trademark application after considering an opposition based primarily on copyright grounds. The outcome is noteworthy because the foreign brand owner had neither trademark registrations nor applications in Vietnam at the time the opposition was filed, and the IP Office has historically applied a stringent approach to oppositions relying on copyright. The Opposition Maurten is a well-known Swedish sports nutrition brand recognized globally for its innovative hydrogel technology, which is designed to help endurance athletes fuel more effectively without gastrointestinal discomfort. The brand’s distinctive logo is characterized by clean lines and a bold black-and-white color scheme, and has long been associated with the company’s performance products. The brand’s logo is displayed above. An identical mark was filed for registration by a Vietnamese trademark squatter. In 2023, a Vietnamese individual filed an application for registration of an identical mark (Application No. 4-2023-38668), a practice commonly observed in Vietnam as trademark squatting. The brand owner engaged Tilleke & Gibbins to assist with strategy and filing an opposition to the mark. At the time, Maurten had no trademark rights or meaningful use in Vietnam, and global marketing data showed only modest figures without any local presence. Thus, to convince the IP Office to refuse the squatter’s application, instead of relying on trademark rights or use evidence, the opposition strategy centered on the copyright protection of the logo itself, as copyright arises automatically in Vietnam upon creation of the work and does not require registration. (It is worth noting, however, that the IP Office has traditionally been cautious in accepting copyright as a basis for refusing trademark applications.) On September 24, 2024, an opposition was filed on three main grounds: confusing similarity, copyright infringement of the artistic work,
Read More
June 10, 2026
For multinational franchisors operating in Thailand, a key risk after franchise termination is that former outlets may continue operating in ways that could easily mislead consumers into believing they remain within the authorized network. To justify such operations, former franchisees often argue that the termination was invalid or ineffective. As a result, these cases are often treated as contractual disputes, making it difficult for franchisors to obtain injunctive relief before a final judgment confirms that the termination was lawful. Franchisors face significant commercial and reputational harm during lengthy proceedings, including consumer confusion, disruption to franchise restructuring, and damage to brand reputation and customer trust. In an encouraging development, the Thai court in a 2025 case responded to the problem of unauthorized post-termination franchise operations by granting interim relief, recognizing broader brand and consumer harm, and awarding substantial damages, highlighting a successful litigation strategy of framing the dispute not merely as a contractual termination issue but as trademark infringement causing ongoing commercial injury. The Subway Case From December 2024 to mid-2025, an unauthorized “Subway®” franchise operation in Thailand attracted substantial public and media attention. Reports and online discussions about unauthorized Subway® stores circulated widely after complaints arose about food quality and customer experience at certain outlets that were allegedly operating after their franchise rights had expired. Because these stores continued to use Subway® trademarks, trade dress, and overall commercial appearance, many consumers were unable to distinguish them from authorized operations, resulting in reputational risks and customer confusion that affected the franchisor’s brand and franchise system in Thailand. Subway treated this matter with the utmost seriousness and moved promptly to protect its brand, franchise system, and customers. It filed a civil action with the IP&IT Court seeking a permanent injunction and damages. During the proceedings, the court granted a preliminary injunction
Read More
May 22, 2026
Intellectual property specialists from Tilleke & Gibbins in Vietnam have contributed an updated Intellectual Property Transactions in Vietnam overview for Thomson Reuters Practical Law, an online publication that provides comprehensive legal guides for jurisdictions worldwide. The Vietnam overview was authored by Linh Thi Mai Nguyen, Thanh Phuong Vu, Chi Lan Dang, Son Thai Hoang, and Duc Anh Tran. The chapter provides a high-level examination of key aspects of IP transactions law in Vietnam, including IP assignment and licensing, research and development collaborations, IP in mergers and acquisitions (M&A), lending and taking security over intellectual property rights, settlement agreements, employee- and consultant-created IP, competition law, taxation, and non-tariff trade barriers. Key topics covered in the chapter include: IP assignment: Basis and formalities for assignments of patents, utility models, trade marks, copyright, design rights, trade secrets, confidential information, and domain names in Vietnam. IP licensing: Scope, formalities, and recordal requirements for licensing patents, trade marks, copyright, design rights, and trade secrets. Research and development collaborations: Treatment of improvements, derivatives, and joint ownership of IP, including exploitation and enforcement issues. IP aspects of M&A and security: Due diligence, warranties, transfer formalities, and taking security over intellectual property rights. Practical Law, a legal reference resource from Thomson Reuters, publishes a range of guides for hundreds of jurisdictions and practice areas. The Intellectual Property Transactions Global Guide is a valuable resource for legal practitioners seeking comparative insight into transactional IP issues across multiple jurisdictions. To view the latest version of the Intellectual Property Transactions in Vietnam overview, please visit the Practical Law website and enroll in the free Practical Law trial to gain full access.
Read More