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

May 13, 2020

Six Steps to Ensure a Successful Raid on Counterfeit Goods in Vietnam

Subscribe to Updates

Counterfeit goods can be found in every country in the world, and the fight against counterfeits never ends. Intellectual property rights (IPR) holders normally invest large amounts in tackling this problem to protect their business and reputation. The most effective measure they usually employ to stop ongoing infringements in Vietnam is to conduct administrative actions, or raids.

To minimize the risks and maximize the effectiveness of these the raids, IPR holders are advised to follow the steps below.

1. Conduct investigation and get bailiff notarization of evidence

Conducting an investigation into a suspected infringer is the first important step an IPR holder should consider adopting. The investigation aims to not only determine the infringer’s business activities and stock volume of the counterfeits, but also to detect locations connected to the counterfeits, especially any warehouses or storage areas. In addition, the investigation also focuses on collecting infringing evidence such as counterfeit samples, relevant price quotations, and other business materials, which can be used to persuade the enforcement authority to conduct a raid against the infringer.

Additionally, during the investigation, the IPR holder may arrange to have a test purchase and/or the infringer’s online commercial pages notarized by a registered bailiff. Such bailiff notarization would serve as incontestable evidence of infringement by the infringer before the enforcement authority if the infringer argues that the counterfeit goods were not traded by or purchased from him/her. Moreover, such bailiff notarization also aims to secure evidence before the court if the IPR holder wishes to claim compensation after the raid. In accordance with Vietnamese laws, such evidence will be easily accepted by the court with no need to reconsider its validity.

2. Evaluate infringement and legal grounds

Based on the investigation results, IPR holders can assess whether the infringer is a low-profile or high-profile trader, a supplier, or a manufacturer, so as to opt for an appropriate legal action and the right enforcement authority to handle the case. For example, if the infringer is merely a retailer or low-profile trader, IPR holders can, for cost-effectiveness, consider sending a cease-and-desist letter to such infringer to seek an amicable settlement rather than conducting a raid. (Of course, if the C&D letter fails, an escalation to a raid action is worth considering.) If the infringer is a high-profile trader, supplier, or manufacturer, the IPR holder should conduct a raid against the infringer to stop their infringements immediately.

In addition, IPR holders should determine the legal grounds for conducting the raid, such as whether they can conduct the raid on the grounds of trademark-counterfeit goods in accordance with Vietnam’s IP Law and related enforcement regulations, or on the grounds of labels or packaging which forge the company’s name or address, as prescribed in Decree No. 185/2013/ND-CP dated November 25, 2013 (as amended), on sanctions against administrative violations in commercial activities. The latter approach is appropriate for IPR holders whose trademarks or packaging designs have not yet been registered as IPR in Vietnam. Otherwise, taking enforcement action on the grounds of trademark-counterfeit goods is preferable because infringements of registered trademarks or designs are more straightforward, and IP-related sanctions imposed on infringers who are involved in trademark-counterfeit goods are more serious.

3. Choose appropriate enforcement authority

Under Vietnamese law, raids on counterfeits can be conducted through various enforcement authorities, including the Market Surveillance Department (MSD), the Economic Police (EP), and the Inspectorate of Science and Technology at the central level (Ministry of Science and Technology (MOST)) or provincial level (Department of Science and Technology). Therefore, IPR holders should consider the authorities’ competence, the nature of the infringement, and the scale of the counterfeits to opt for the suitable authority.

For example, if the infringer is a manufacturer, the EP or MOST should be chosen because the MSD is not entitled to conduct raids against a manufacturer. Or if the counterfeits are of a significant quantity, or related to health such as medicine or foodstuffs, the EP should be chosen, so that the IPR holder can consider opening a criminal case after the raid depending on the seriousness of the infringement. (In practice, the EP also prefers to handle such cases.)

4. Make initial check with authority and prepare complaint

To avoid delays in conducting raids, it is advisable to first check with the authorities, especially the EP and MOST, on the timing of when a raid can be done. Additionally, in some cases, when the infringing marks (especially logos) have a slight difference in terms of design, the authority may require the IPR holder to provide an expert opinion on infringement from the Vietnam Intellectual Property Research Institute (VIPRI). Checking with the authority first can confirm whether this VIPRI opinion is required (it usually is not) so that the IPR holder can proactively seek the opinion before submission of the complaint calling for a raid.

After checking with the authority, IPR holders should prepare a standard complaint, in which they include information on their IPR in Vietnam, details of the infringer, and its potential infringement(s). However, to avoid any possible leakage of information, the complaint should not provide too much information on the infringer.

In addition to the complaint, IPR holders should also prepare full supporting documents such as certified copies of trademark registrations (if the raids are conducted on the grounds of trademark-counterfeit goods), evidence of the infringements, and so on. In accordance with the enforcement regulations, it is also obligatory to provide the authority with an explanation on how to distinguish counterfeits from the genuine products. All of the supporting documents should be submitted together with the complaint to avoid further requests for supplementation from the authorities, which will, of course, result in delays in the raid process.

5. Follow up closely with authority and arrange pre-raid meetings

After submission of the complaint, IPR holders should proactively follow up with the enforcement authority to push the progress of the action. More importantly, the IPR holders or their counsel should also proactively arrange face-to-face meetings with the assigned authority to clarify everything, and provide further information such as the infringer’s business activities and network, the position of the counterfeits in its premises, and the location of any suspected warehouses or storage areas.

Moreover, the IPR holders via their counsel should cooperate with the authorities in conducting pre-raid verification, making test purchases if needed, and providing genuine and counterfeit samples for the authority’s reference. Good cooperation and a proactive follow-up with the enforcement authority in this stage will be supportive to a successful raid within the expected timeframe. Otherwise, delays from the enforcement authority can be expected.

6. Attend raids and post-raid working sessions

IPR holders may, in appropriate situations, proactively request the authority to join the raids in order to provide support in verifying the authenticity of the goods right at the spot, search for hidden counterfeits, and provide legal grounds to persuade the authority to seize goods bearing complicated marks, which may make the authority confused in determining whether they are counterfeits.

For example, as regularly seen for fashion products, counterfeit goods are often affixed with various labels, which can contain both the IPR holder’s registered trademarks and the infringer’s own marks and/or counterfeiter’s marks if the infringer is not the manufacturer, so the infringer may, during the raids, argue that these products are not trademark-counterfeit goods.

In those cases, the IPR holders need to affirm with the authority that the goods are still considered counterfeit because the prevailing laws do not stipulate that goods bearing both the infringer’s own marks/other marks and the IPR holder’s registered trademarks are not counterfeit. Instead, any goods which bear marks identical or nearly identical to the IPR holder’s registered trademarks are considered trademark-counterfeit goods, regardless of whether such goods also bear other marks.

If the infringer has business materials such as signs, business cards, brochures, leaflets, etc., containing marks identical to the IPR holder’s registered trademarks, the authority should be requested to seize them as well, because such materials can be considered trademark-counterfeit materials as provided by the enforcement regulations, and can be subject to another sanction for counterfeit materials.

The IPR holders should then, via their counsel, attend post-raid working sessions with the authority and the infringer to verify the seized goods and materials, and submit a confirmation letter about the inauthenticity of the seized goods to the authority. Based on such confirmation letter, the authority will issue an administrative sanction or decide to open a criminal case against the infringer.

Summary

As observed, counterfeiting is on the rise not only in Vietnam but also in neighboring countries, and conducting raids is the most effective solution to stop counterfeits immediately. However, IPR holders need to prepare carefully for this action. Otherwise they may place themselves in a passive position, and the results of the raids will not meet expectations. Therefore, the aforementioned steps not only provide IPR holders with an overview of raid procedures, but also suggest good plans for them to fight against counterfeit goods and manufacturers/traders of the same.

Related Professionals

Practices

Intellectual Property

Location

RELATED INSIGHTS​ 

September 14, 2026
Myanmar’s first-to-file trademark registration regime under the Trademark Law 2019—which became fully operational in April 2023—provides mark owners with enhanced legal protection compared with the country’s former system. Correspondingly, the current system imposes more rigorous statutory requirements for obtaining, maintaining, and enforcing rights in marks. In this first-to-file trademark registration system, however, evidence of use remains particularly significant, as it may establish acquired distinctiveness, support a claim that a mark is well-known, and strengthen the owner’s position in both registration and enforcement proceedings. Accordingly, it can be said that this framework is underpinned by three key concepts: distinctiveness, well-known status, and, importantly, use of the trademark. Trademark Distinctiveness Under the Trademark Law, signs that lack distinctiveness are generally ineligible for mark protection. These signs include generic terms, basic shapes, unstylized single letters or numerals, and signs that merely describe the kind, quality, quantity, intended purpose, value, geographical origin, production time, or other characteristics of the relevant goods or services. However, a mark that would otherwise be refused on distinctiveness or descriptiveness grounds may be registrable if it has acquired distinctiveness through its use prior to the filing date. To show this, the applicant must demonstrate that the mark became distinctive to relevant consumers through continuous, exclusive, and good-faith use in trade within Myanmar. The burden of proving acquired distinctiveness rests with the mark owner. Accordingly, sufficient evidence demonstrating both use of the mark and the level of consumer recognition attained should be prepared in advance. Well-Known Mark Criteria Myanmar’s Trademark Rules, which govern the substantive examination of mark registration applications, establish criteria for determining well-known marks, aligned with international standards. Where an applicant claims well-known status—whether to overcome a refusal on relative grounds or to oppose a third party’s registration—the registrar will assess the claim based on the following
Read More
September 14, 2026
On August 23, 2026, Vietnam’s National Assembly passed Law No. 11/2026/QH16, amending the country’s Customs Law with effect from March 1, 2027. The amendments represent a substantial reform of Vietnam’s customs-based intellectual property enforcement regime. The reforms come amid considerable external pressure. In its 2026 Special 301 review, the US Trade Representative (USTR) designated Vietnam a “priority foreign country,” citing widespread counterfeiting, weak border enforcement, limited ex officio customs powers, and the absence of controls over goods in transit. Vietnam’s legislative response signals a commitment to bringing its border enforcement practices into line with international expectations. For IP rights holders operating in or through Vietnam, the amended law introduces several tools that substantially strengthen enforcement options at the border. Closing the Transit Gap One of the most consequential amendments is the extension of IP-related customs enforcement to goods in transit. Previously, Vietnam’s customs regime applied IP controls only to goods being imported or exported, a gap the USTR had specifically identified as enabling infringing goods to pass through Vietnamese ports with impunity. Vietnam’s geographic position as a logistics hub for Southeast Asia means that substantial volumes of goods transit its ports and free-trade zones. Extending enforcement to cover these shipments brings Vietnam closer to the standard set by the EU’s customs enforcement regulation and addresses a longstanding concern of multinational brand owners whose goods are frequently counterfeited in the region. Strengthened Suspension and Ex Officio Powers The amended law introduces a dual-track suspension mechanism (Article 73(2)). Customs authorities will suspend clearance upon request by an IP rights holder (or authorized representative) who provides evidence of IP ownership, evidence of infringement, and a financial guarantee. Customs can now proactively suspend clearance on an ex officio basis if, during inspection and monitoring, they discover “clear grounds” to suspect that imported, exported,
Read More
September 7, 2026
Indonesia’s Constitutional Court (Mahkamah Konstitusi) has reinstated a key provision limiting pharmaceutical patent protection, signaling a renewed commitment to balancing patent rights with public access to medicines. In its ruling to Case No. 255/PUU-XXIII/2025, the court partially granted a petition for judicial review of Law No. 65 of 2024, which had amended the country’s Patent Law, and ordered the restoration of a provision that had excluded certain pharmaceutical inventions from patentability. The decision took effect immediately upon its pronouncement at the court’s plenary session on August 28, 2026. Background The petition challenged the removal of article 4(f) from Law No. 13 of 2016 concerning Patents (Patent Law), as amended by Law No. 65 of 2024. Article 4(f) had excluded from patentability certain inventions relating to new uses of known substances. The petitioners argued that removing this provision would open the door to patent protection for second medical use inventions and facilitate patent evergreening—practices that can extend exclusivity periods, delay generic market entry, and reduce public access to affordable medicines. The petitioners included several patient advocacy and public-interest organizations: the Indonesian Dialysis Patients Community Association, the Indonesian Association of Drug Abuse Victims (PKNI), the Indonesian Pulmonary Hypertension Foundation (YHPI), the Rekat Peduli Indonesia Foundation, and the Indonesian Positive Women’s Association (IPPI), along with the Indonesia for Global Justice Association and four individual petitioners. The petitioners also challenged the constitutionality of the phrase “interested party” in article 70(1) of the Patent Law, arguing that it should be construed expressly to clarify who has standing to appeal a decision to grant a patent before the Board of Patent Appeal, and to allow a broader range of parties—such as patent holders, licensees, consumer organizations, prosecutors, aggrieved third parties, and others who may suffer direct or indirect harm from the grant of a patent—to
Read More
September 2, 2026
Thailand and China have a longstanding and significant trade relationship, which increasingly extends to e-commerce and digitally enabled supply chains. While these channels create new opportunities for businesses to reach consumers across borders, their growth also brings greater exposure to intellectual property (IP) infringement across jurisdictions and online platforms. Effective cooperation between the two countries’ enforcement authorities has therefore become increasingly important. To strengthen cooperation in this area, Thailand and China signed a memorandum of understanding (MOU) on IP enforcement in Beijing on July 20, 2026, during the Thai prime minister’s official visit to China. Officially titled “Memorandum of Understanding Between the State Administration for Market Regulation of the People’s Republic of China and the Ministry of Commerce of the Kingdom of Thailand on Cooperation in the Field of Intellectual Property Enforcement,” the MOU forms part of a broader bilateral agenda covering industrial and supply chains, participation by micro, small, and medium-sized enterprises (MSMEs), cooperation associated with the ASEAN–China Free Trade Area 3.0, and progress on the registration of Thai geographical indications in China. The MOU establishes a bilateral framework for cooperation and coordination in five broad areas: Strengthening dialogue in IP enforcement; Enhancing information sharing; Facilitating the enforcement of IP rights in cases arising in the parties’ domestic markets and on online platforms, in accordance with their respective domestic laws; Promoting cooperation in IP enforcement training and human resource development; and Undertaking other cooperation activities agreed upon by both sides. The Department of Intellectual Property (DIP) will serve as the principal coordinating agency for Thailand, while the Bureau of Law Enforcement and Inspection in China’s State Administration for Market Regulation (SAMR) will serve in that role for China. The framework is particularly relevant to the growth of e-commerce, as it covers infringement in the domestic markets and on
Read More