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

February 8, 2022

New Decree on IP Sanctions a Small Step Forward in Vietnam

Subscribe to Updates
Managing Intellectual Property

On December 30, 2021, Vietnam’s Ministry of Science and Technology (MOST) issued Decree No. 126/2021/ND-CP (Decree 126) amending several provisions of Decree No. 99/2013/ND-CP of the government dated August 29, 2013 (Decree 99), which is the primary legislation on the sanctioning of administrative violations in industrial property. Decree 126 took near-immediate effect with the new year on January 1, 2022.

While the new decree offers some clear improvements that will help enforcement authorities and practitioners to deal with the infringement of industrial property rights, it has some notable shortcomings compared to a draft version of the decree that was circulated in mid-2021

Key Changes in Decree 126

While Decree 126 retains most of the regulations in Decree 99, it introduces some significant changes such as expanding the scope of regulation, increasing the level of administrative fines, and providing more specific details on violations as well as remedies.

First, Decree 126 has expanded the scope of its coverage under Article 1, and added a new sub-article explicitly listing the entities that are subject to administrative sanctions, such as companies, IP agencies, and IP examiners. This new provision allows the enforcement authorities to easily detect and apply sanctions to infringers.

Decree 126 has also expanded the seizure authority in many provisions. Under the previous regulations, the authorities could only confiscate material evidence and means used in the commission of administrative violations when the total value of such materials did not exceed the amount of the fine for the violation. Under Decree 126, the total value of confiscated materials may be up to twice the set fine amount. This should have a noticeable impact on enforcement efforts.

While some of the provisions in Decree 99 are somewhat vague and, as a result, difficult to apply, Decree 126 has made an improvement by setting forth clearer and more specific regulations about violations and remedial measures. With these provisions more clearly set out in the law, there will be less need for interpretation, which will make life easier for both IP holders and enforcement authorities.

Changes Left Behind in the Draft

Prior to the issuance of Decree 126, in June 2021, MOST had published a draft version of the decree to get comments from professionals and the public. The draft decree, in many ways, would have provided stronger protection to IP holders than the version that was promulgated, and removed some obstacles to enforcement of their IP rights in Vietnam.

One of the highlights in the draft decree was the addition of the export of IP-infringing goods to the list of activities subject to administrative sanctions. Unfortunately, Decree 126 did not retain this change, which will leave enforcement authorities in a difficult position when trying to deal with infringements encountered in exported goods, due to the lack of regulations.

Further, in the draft decree, MOST had specifically set a longer time limit of two years for imposing administrative sanctions on IP violations, and also stipulated that repeated violations were aggravating circumstances. In Decree 126, MOST has withdrawn these regulations. As a result, the statute of limitations for handling administrative violations remains one year only. Most IP holders find that this period is quite short for taking effective legal action.

Not all of the new decree’s departures from the draft should be viewed as negative. For example, the draft decree limited the ability to apply supplemental sanctions and remedies in all categories by making the confiscation of raw materials, materials, and means used to manufacture or trade infringing goods only applicable if “deliberate and serious” violations were committed during the manufacture, export, import, trade, transport, or storage for sale of goods bearing counterfeit marks or geographical indications. However, Decree 126 has not laid down any requirements regarding the deliberateness or seriousness of the violation in order to apply supplemental sanctions. In this context, the IP holder is not forced to prove the deliberate and serious nature of the violation in order to apply the remedies, which can be a time-consuming and complicated process.

More importantly, Decree 126 has not removed cross-border transit from all categories of administrative sanctions, as was found in the draft decree. In particular, Decree 126 still explicitly includes cross-border transit as a form of transporting goods, and thus it still falls within the scope of administrative sanctions. At present, many infringers take advantage of the transit regime to trade in counterfeit goods. Hence, the authorities should have the right to address transit shipments to crack down on infringement.

The government is finalizing a new version of the IP Law, which is expected to be issued this year. It is hoped that after the new IP Law is in place, MOST will amend and supplement new, stronger regulations on IP sanctions in line with the new law.

This article first appeared in Managing Intellectual Property.

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