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​ 

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