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

July 9, 2018

Non-Competition Clause Upheld by Vietnamese Arbitral Body and Court

Subscribe to Updates

The People’s Court of Ho Chi Minh City was recently requested to overturn an arbitral decision by the Vietnam International Arbitration Center (VIAC) relating to a non-competition clause. In the end, however, the court ruled that VIAC’s decision was correct, thus upholding a non-compete clause signed between a company and its employee. The decision represents one of the first times in Vietnam in which the enforcement of a non-compete clause was tested. Although it is not a legally binding precedent, it does show that non-compete clauses can potentially be upheld in Vietnam. In previous cases, decisions have come down differently, holding that the right to work anywhere was a basic right.

In the case in question, an employee of a local company had signed an agreement to not work for a competitor in the same field for a period of 12 months after finishing employment with the employer. However, a few months after the employee parted ways with the company, the employer discovered that the former employee was working for a competitor, in contravention of the non-compete clause. The former employer then filed an action at VIAC, the dispute forum stipulated by the parties in relation to the non-compete clause. If the case was considered a pure labor case, the Ho Chi Minh City Court would have had exclusive jurisdiction. However, the non-compete and non-disclosure agreement were considered as being independent from the labor contract.

VIAC ruled in favor of the employer, and then the employee petitioned the Ho Chi Minh City Court to overturn VIAC’s ruling. The court maintained that when concluding the non-competition agreement, the employer and employee had full civil capacity to enter into the agreement, and such civil agreements should be upheld. The employee was required to pay damages for the breach of the agreement.

This decision represents a strong victory in Vietnam for the freedom-of-contract principle, and gives strong hope that anti-competition agreements, and similar agreements such as nondisclosure agreements, can be successfully enforced in Vietnam.

Related Professionals

Practices

Dispute Resolution and Litigation

Employment

Location

RELATED INSIGHTS​ 

September 25, 2025
Four of Tilleke & Gibbins’ labor and employment specialists in Phnom Penh have authored the Cambodia chapter of Labor and Employment Disputes 2026, the latest edition of Lexology Panoramic’s global guide to handling labor and employment disputes. The chapter provides practical insights on a wide range of dispute resolution issues, including: Pre-action considerations: key requirements, third-party funding, contingency fee arrangements Issuing a claim: forum, territorial jurisdiction, standing, commencing claims, fees, service, defendants and legal personality, types of claims, time limits, counterclaims Case management: procedure, rules, amendments to claims, adding parties, consolidating proceedings, class and collective actions, evidence, witnesses, tactical considerations Interim relief: availability, requirements Trial: hearings conduct and time frames, confidentiality and public access, media reporting, elements of successful claims and burden of proof Alternative dispute resolution: available types, requirements and expectations, enforcement Collective employment and labor rights: enforcement and standing Remedies and enforcement: available remedies, assessing compensation, enforcement mechanisms Appeals: procedure, time frames, other means of challenge Updates and trends: recent cases and developments, technology developments, other issues The full Cambodia chapter is available for download below. Tilleke & Gibbins also contributed the Thailand and Vietnam chapters to Labor and Employment Disputes 2026. Readers can also gain 30 days of complementary access to the full Labor and Employment Disputes 2026 guide and the rest of Lexology Panoramic’s varied offerings through this link.
Read More
September 10, 2025
Under Thai law, authorized directors stand as a company’s mind and will and, as such, may incur personal criminal liability for acts or omissions committed in the course of company business. When allegations surface, directors must be prepared for the practical reality that, before guilt or innocence is ever adjudicated, they could be deprived of liberty unless bail release is promptly achieved through the competent legal authority. When Bail Can Be Granted Two procedural moments trigger the need to consider bail. The first arises during the investigative phase, when a claim is lodged against a director with the competent law enforcement authorities. Upon receipt of a complaint, the assigned inquiry officer summons the director for questioning, compiles evidence, and ultimately forwards a prosecution or nonprosecution recommendation to the public prosecutor. Although the public prosecutor retains ultimate discretion to indict an accused director, the police or prosecutor may conclude that pretrial detention is necessary and may therefore apply to the court for an order to hold the director in court custody. The second moment occurs after a criminal case is filed directly with the court. This occurs once a court accepts a criminal case filed by a prosecutor against a director or, alternatively, when the court accepts a case filed by an individual for trial. For cases filed by individuals, the plaintiff presents prima facie evidence at the preliminary hearing, and the court will accept the complaint if it finds sufficient grounds, thereby conferring upon the director the status of a criminal defendant. Upon acceptance of the criminal case, the court then has the inherent authority to order custody pending trial unless the defendant secures bail release. Procedural Considerations Experienced litigants typically prepare bail security in advance and submit a bail petition at the earliest possible time. While there are
Read More
September 4, 2025
On June 6, 2025, the Superior People’s Court in Hanoi overturned a non-use cancellation decision by the Intellectual Property Office of Vietnam, a rare and impactful occurrence. In a ruling that may help clarify the enforcement of Vietnam’s IP Law, the court held that valid trademark use can be established through commercial arrangements where the brand owner maintains actual control over the use of the mark, and is not confined to relationships governed by a so-called “formal license agreement. Background: Cross-Border Use, Local Challenge A Singapore company owns a well-known brand of consumer products that has gained recognition across Southeast Asia. In recent years, the brand has been targeted by several unauthorized trademark filings in Vietnam. In one such instance, a local Vietnamese trading company—previously linked to the production and export of counterfeit goods to neighboring countries—filed a non-use cancellation against the Singapore company’s mark and sought to register it under its own name. If the cancellation had been upheld, it would have enabled a complete hijacking of the brand. The IP holder operates in Vietnam through a structured cross-border supply chain. Under an agreement between two related foreign entities, one of which managed regional operations, production orders were placed through a designated Vietnamese company. While the Vietnamese manufacturer was not a party to the agreement, its role in using the mark was recognized and governed by internal and commercial documentation. The Vietnamese manufacturer lawfully obtained the necessary permits, regulatory approvals, and customs clearances for producing the goods in Vietnam. These activities were supported by banking records and internal communications, evidencing active, continuous use of the mark in Vietnam. However, the IP Office concluded that this use did not meet the statutory criteria because the Vietnamese manufacturer did not have a direct license agreement with the brand owner, as
Read More
September 2, 2025
On August 26, 2025, the Thai cabinet approved a one-year postponement of mandatory contributions to the Employee Welfare Fund. Originally scheduled to take effect on October 1, 2025, the enforcement date has been deferred to October 1, 2026. The decision to delay the implementation stems from ongoing economic uncertainties in Thailand, driven by several external and domestic factors. These include increased trade tariffs imposed by the United States, the recent rise in the national minimum wage, and continued geopolitical tensions resulting from unresolved disputes with neighboring countries. These challenges have placed significant pressure on both businesses and the labor market, prompting the government to offer temporary relief through this deferral. As a result of the postponement, the following regulations will now come into effect on October 1, 2026: Royal Decree determining the Commencement Period for Savings and Contributions to the Employee Welfare Fund; Ministerial Notification specifying the Rates of Savings and Contributions; and Ministerial Notification outlining the Criteria and Procedures for Employers to Provide Assistance in Cases of Termination of Employment or Death. The Labour Welfare Fund Committee has formally endorsed the postponement. Contribution Rates Unchanged Although the implementation has been delayed, the contribution rates remain unchanged: October 1, 2026–September 30, 2031: Employers and employees each contribute 0.25% of the employee’s wage to the fund. From October 1, 2031, onward: Contributions increase to 0.5% of the employee’s wage for both parties. All other rules and conditions concerning the Employee Welfare Fund remain in full effect.
Read More