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​ 

August 20, 2026
As part of its membership in Lex Mundi, Tilleke & Gibbins has released the latest edition of its Guide to Doing Business in Thailand, providing an overview of the legal, regulatory, and commercial considerations for companies establishing or expanding operations in Thailand. The 2026 edition offers practical insight into the country’s business environment, investment framework, and operational requirements. The guide covers a wide range of topics relevant to foreign and domestic investors, including: Investment incentives and promotion schemes Financial facilities and banking regulations Exchange controls and money transfers Import and export regulations Business structures and incorporation options Requirements for establishing a business Operational and compliance considerations Business cessation and insolvency procedures Employment and labor laws Taxation Immigration and visa requirements Prepared by Tilleke & Gibbins lawyers across multiple practice areas, the publication outlines key aspects of doing business in Thailand, including foreign investment restrictions, regulatory compliance obligations, corporate structures, employment requirements, and recent legal and economic developments affecting investors. The publication forms part of Lex Mundi’s Country Guides series, a global collection of jurisdiction-specific reference materials prepared by member firms around the world. Together, these guides help companies evaluate opportunities, compare regulatory environments, and plan international business activities across multiple markets. The full Guide to Doing Business in Thailand 2026 is available through the button below.
Read More
August 13, 2026
Modern agricultural machinery is no longer purely mechanical but instead technology dependent. Modern tractors, harvesters, and other farm equipment increasingly incorporate embedded software, electronic control units, sensors, and digital diagnostic systems. While such technologies enhance efficiency, productivity, and precision farming, they also affect the manner of equipment repair and maintenance. As a result, farmers and independent repair providers may have little practical choice but to rely on authorized dealers, even for routine maintenance and repairs. Section 36 of Thailand’s Patent Act reflects the principle that the authorized sale of a patented invention usually exhausts the exclusive right of the patent owner over the specific product. This means that upon legal sale of the patented product, it can typically be used or resold without further authorization from the patent holder. This principle is relatively straightforward when applied to traditional mechanical equipment. Ownership of a machine ordinarily carries with it the practical ability to diagnose faults, replace worn parts, and restore the equipment to working order. Modern agricultural machinery, however, increasingly depends on embedded software, proprietary diagnostic systems, firmware updates, and other digital resources that may remain under the control of the manufacturer or patent holder. This tension lies within the “right to repair” debate. In the United States, on July 8, 2026, the Federal Trade Commission and five states announced a settlement with Deere & Company resolving allegations that Deere had unlawfully restricted farmers’ and independent repair providers’ ability to repair their equipment. Under the terms of the settlement, for the next ten years, Deere must provide repair resources, including software capabilities, on terms equivalent to those provided to authorized dealers. The Deere settlement highlights that the nature of ownership is changing, but legal concepts have not kept pace. Traditional patent-law concepts, including patent exhaustion, were developed with physical products
Read More
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
Read More
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
Read More