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

June 18, 2015

New Customs Enforcement Regime

Subscribe to Updates
Managing Intellectual Property

On January 30, 2015, the Ministry of Finance introduced Circular 13/2015/TT-BTC guiding the implementation of regulations in the new Law on Customs on Customs enforcement against IP infringement. Circular 13 took effect on March 15, 2015, and, in line with the new law, brought about changes to the border control measures that had been in place in Vietnam for the past decade. Two months into the new regime, it appears that these changes, though seemingly not substantial, have increased the transparency as well as the effectiveness of Customs enforcement.

Changes to Customs Recordal

In Vietnam, Customs enforcement includes recordal of IP rights (trademarks, patents, etc) and seizure of suspicious shipments at the border. In most cases, Customs recordal lays the foundation for Customs seizure (suspension of the clearance of the goods, in other words). If IP rights are recorded with Customs, Customs will notify the holders upon the discovery of any goods suspected of infringing their IP rights. Without prior Customs recordal, IP right holders still have the right to call on Customs to seize a specific suspected shipment that is bound for Vietnam. When Customs independently detects counterfeits, the prevailing regulations enable Customs to act ex officio with or without a prior Customs recordal.

The new regulations extended the validity of Customs recordal from one year to two years, with the option to renew for another two years. In addition, they assigned a new agency to assume responsibility for Customs recordal. Previously, IPR holders had to submit applications for recordal to the Anti-Smuggling and Investigation Department under the General Department of Vietnam Customs, which would review the applications and decide on the approval of the recordal. However, since the effective date of Circular 13, the Customs Control and Supervision Department has assumed responsibility for the recordal, allowing the Anti-Smuggling and Investigation Department to focus on actual IP enforcement instead of the paperwork of Customs recordal.

This shift of responsibility raised some concerns about the effectiveness of IP enforcement at the border if there was not frequent and close cooperation between the two departments. However, despite some lag time at the outset, the work of Customs recordal seems to be running smoothly under the Customs Control and Supervision Department, which is in close coordination with the Anti-Smuggling and Investigation Department and promptly informs them of decisions on recordal.

Changes to Customs Seizure

Upon the detection of suspected infringing goods, Customs will suspend the clearance of the goods and notify the IP right holder or its authorized IP agency. Circular 13 introduced the requirement that this notification must include photos of the goods in question, to enable the holders to make a more precise decision on whether to pursue Customs enforcement actions.

The new laws go into further detail about the timing for the Customs seizure process. In principle, if the holders desire a seizure, they must file an application with Customs within three working days from receipt of the notification. However, the previous laws did not set forth an express time frame for Customs’ follow-up actions. This loophole raised concerns about transparency in the process. Now, the system has changed, with Circular 13 specifying a time frame of five working days from the notification date for customs to decide whether to officially seize or release the goods. When the IP right holder calls for a Customs seizure, Customs must issue a decision on the official suspension of clearance of the goods within two working hours from the time it receives the complete application, if it accepts the holder’s request.

Also, the new Law on Customs and Circular 13 stipulate a window for the Customs seizure of 10 working days starting from the notification date, rather than the date on which the IP right holder receives the notification, as mentioned in the IP Law. This can effectively shorten the window by several days, as the delivery of the notification can take as long as a week if sent by post. During this period, the holder is entitled to collect further relevant information about the shipments in question for the purpose of assessing the possible infringement. The holder can also obtain expert opinions to support the assessment process. The result of the assessment or the expert opinion should be submitted to Customs to facilitate their resolution of the case. If the holder cannot meet the deadline for the Customs seizure, it can call for an extension of 10 further working days. If an expert opinion on the possibility of infringement is necessary, Customs will continue suspending the clearance of the goods until it receives the opinion.

The new regulations also introduce a regime in which Customs can act ex officio in cases of not only counterfeits but also other infringing goods. According to Article 14.3 of Circular 13, even without a request for protection of IP rights, Customs will still inspect the goods, take samples and coordinate with the Anti-Smuggling and Investigation Department and/or other relevant Customs divisions to decide on the detention of goods suspected to infringe specific IP rights as a result of their inspection of the actual goods and/or the Customs dossier.

We believe that in light of the increased transparency in the process of Customs seizure as well as new ex officio power of Customs, the new regulations will lift the effectiveness of Customs enforcement to a new level.

Download Full Article
Related Professionals

Practices

Intellectual Property

Location

RELATED INSIGHTS​ 

September 7, 2026
Indonesia’s Constitutional Court (Mahkamah Konstitusi) has reinstated a key provision limiting pharmaceutical patent protection, signaling a renewed commitment to balancing patent rights with public access to medicines. In its ruling to Case No. 255/PUU-XXIII/2025, the court partially granted a petition for judicial review of Law No. 65 of 2024, which had amended the country’s Patent Law, and ordered the restoration of a provision that had excluded certain pharmaceutical inventions from patentability. The decision took effect immediately upon its pronouncement at the court’s plenary session on August 28, 2026. Background The petition challenged the removal of article 4(f) from Law No. 13 of 2016 concerning Patents (Patent Law), as amended by Law No. 65 of 2024. Article 4(f) had excluded from patentability certain inventions relating to new uses of known substances. The petitioners argued that removing this provision would open the door to patent protection for second medical use inventions and facilitate patent evergreening—practices that can extend exclusivity periods, delay generic market entry, and reduce public access to affordable medicines. The petitioners included several patient advocacy and public-interest organizations: the Indonesian Dialysis Patients Community Association, the Indonesian Association of Drug Abuse Victims (PKNI), the Indonesian Pulmonary Hypertension Foundation (YHPI), the Rekat Peduli Indonesia Foundation, and the Indonesian Positive Women’s Association (IPPI), along with the Indonesia for Global Justice Association and four individual petitioners. The petitioners also challenged the constitutionality of the phrase “interested party” in article 70(1) of the Patent Law, arguing that it should be construed expressly to clarify who has standing to appeal a decision to grant a patent before the Board of Patent Appeal, and to allow a broader range of parties—such as patent holders, licensees, consumer organizations, prosecutors, aggrieved third parties, and others who may suffer direct or indirect harm from the grant of a patent—to
Read More
September 2, 2026
Thailand and China have a longstanding and significant trade relationship, which increasingly extends to e-commerce and digitally enabled supply chains. While these channels create new opportunities for businesses to reach consumers across borders, their growth also brings greater exposure to intellectual property (IP) infringement across jurisdictions and online platforms. Effective cooperation between the two countries’ enforcement authorities has therefore become increasingly important. To strengthen cooperation in this area, Thailand and China signed a memorandum of understanding (MOU) on IP enforcement in Beijing on July 20, 2026, during the Thai prime minister’s official visit to China. Officially titled “Memorandum of Understanding Between the State Administration for Market Regulation of the People’s Republic of China and the Ministry of Commerce of the Kingdom of Thailand on Cooperation in the Field of Intellectual Property Enforcement,” the MOU forms part of a broader bilateral agenda covering industrial and supply chains, participation by micro, small, and medium-sized enterprises (MSMEs), cooperation associated with the ASEAN–China Free Trade Area 3.0, and progress on the registration of Thai geographical indications in China. The MOU establishes a bilateral framework for cooperation and coordination in five broad areas: Strengthening dialogue in IP enforcement; Enhancing information sharing; Facilitating the enforcement of IP rights in cases arising in the parties’ domestic markets and on online platforms, in accordance with their respective domestic laws; Promoting cooperation in IP enforcement training and human resource development; and Undertaking other cooperation activities agreed upon by both sides. The Department of Intellectual Property (DIP) will serve as the principal coordinating agency for Thailand, while the Bureau of Law Enforcement and Inspection in China’s State Administration for Market Regulation (SAMR) will serve in that role for China. The framework is particularly relevant to the growth of e-commerce, as it covers infringement in the domestic markets and on
Read More
August 28, 2026
When considering a franchise, many people first think of a restaurant, retail chain, or service outlet. From a legal perspective, however, the foundation of every franchise lies in the right to use a brand, which is typically granted through a trademark license. Trademarks are often the most valuable assets in a franchise system. Through a trademark license, a franchisor authorizes a franchisee to use its trademarks, logos, and branding while maintaining control over how the brand is presented to customers. The Role of Trademarks in Franchise Businesses Under the Trademark Law 2019, a mark is defined as a sign that is capable of distinguishing the goods or services of one undertaking from those of others in the course of trade. This distinguishing function is particularly important in a franchise arrangement, where the franchisee’s use of the franchisor’s trademark allows consumers to recognize the source, quality, and reputation of the business. In this way, trademarks help preserve brand identity, strengthen market recognition, and protect the commercial value of the franchise system. Legal Foundation for Franchise Brand Protection Myanmar presently does not have a specific statutory framework governing franchise arrangements. As a result, franchise agreements are generally regulated under the broader applicable legal framework, including the Contract Act 1872, the Trademark Law 2019, the Competition Law 2015, the Consumer Protection Law 2019, and the relevant implementing rules and regulations. The licensing of trademarks within a franchise arrangement is particularly governed by the Trademark Law 2019. Franchisors should ensure that the trademarks intended to be licensed to franchisees in Myanmar are registered under the Trademark Law 2019 and that the relevant trademark license is properly recorded with the Intellectual Property Department (IPD). Trademark License Recordal Under the Trademark Law 2019, the owner of a registered trademark may grant a license to another
Read More
August 27, 2026
It is generally understood that patents are granted for new designs that have not been widely known or used in Thailand and not been disclosed anywhere prior to the date of the patent application. It is trite law that design law protects the distinctive appearance or products. Under Section 3 of the Thai Patent Act B.E. 2522, as amended by the Patent Act (No. 2) B.E. 2535 and the Patent Act (No. 3) B.E. 2542, a design is defined as “any form or composition of lines or colors that gives a product a special appearance and can serve as a pattern for an industrial or handicraft product.” This raises an important question. Can a patent be issued for a product design that contains text, numerals, trademarks, or symbols that do not fall under the definition of a design? This issue commonly arises when attempting to register packaging, labels, and graphical user interfaces (GUIs). Until a few years ago, applicants could file design applications with the Thai Patent Office for designs that contained such elements, provided that an appropriate disclaimer was included. This practice was generally accepted by Thai design examiners at that time, but the Patent Office has since implemented a change in its practice that could have a significant impact on applicants for design patents. Where design representations are submitted as line drawings or computer-aided design (CAD) drawings, the examiner may now issue an office action requiring their removal. This practice, however, appears to be applied inconsistently, as some examiners still exercise their own discretion in determining whether drawings containing these elements are acceptable. Below are examples of a GUI design, a CAD drawing design, and a photographic design representation that illustrates issues relating to the presence of nonallowable elements. GUI design For this GUI design, the submitted
Read More