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​ 

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