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

October 3, 2017

Tough Penalties for Import of Refurbished Hard Drives

Subscribe to Updates
Managing Intellectual Property

On August 25, the Customs Department of Hai Phong issued two decisions sanctioning a Vietnamese company for the import of trademark-infringing products and the import of prohibited goods, ending more than two months of customs clearance suspension proceedings. The decisions are groundbreaking because of customs’ pioneering standpoint in dealing with refurbished goods.

Beginning with Customs Recordal

To enforce its trademark rights in Vietnam, a large Silicon Valley high-tech company obtained customs recordal of its protected trademarks for products including computer hard drives, with the aim of seizing suspicious shipments at the border. Such recordal means that customs offices either on a nationwide scale or at some designated ports of entry/exit will monitor incoming shipments for goods that possibly infringe the recorded trademarks.

As a result of this monitoring, in early June 2017, customs informed the brand owner of a suspected inbound shipment containing 1,000 allegedly brand new hard drives bearing the company’s trademarks. The drives were declared to be sold at a price of only USD 3 per item, an indication that they were unlikely to be genuine, and were not imported by official distributors in Vietnam. Given this suspicious information, Tilleke & Gibbins, on behalf and under authorization of the brand owner, filed a request for suspension of the shipment for further verification. After reviewing some sample hard drives taken from the shipment, the brand owner found that all of the drives were used and/or refurbished.

Are Refurbished Goods Genuine or Infringing?

It was discovered that some or all of the components of the hard drives were genuine and indeed manufactured by or under authorization of the brand owner. However, according to Article 20 of Circular No. 11/2015/TT-BKHCN of the Ministry of Science and Technology on the sanctioning of administrative violations in the field of industrial property (Circular 11), used, repaired, or refurbished goods bearing protected trademarks are still regarded as trademark-infringing if the goods mislead consumers as to the origin of the products or business entity. In this case, the drives should be deemed to infringe the brand owner’s trademarks as the products were refurbished without control and consent of the brand owner.

The Vietnamese importer argued that they did not consciously commit infringement, as they did not know the status of the drives at the time of purchase and import. Also, the drives were refurbished by the exporter, not the importer. However, conscious fault is not a compulsory condition in the finding of infringement. Any act breaking the law, either consciously or unconsciously, must be sanctioned. Such regulation is also to prevent circumstances in which violators disingenuously raise “unconscious fault” to excuse their violation.

As a result, customs agreed with the brand owner’s position and imposed a fine of VND 78 million (approximately USD 3,500) on the importer for the import of trademark-infringing products.

Destruction or Removal of Infringing Elements

Another fundamental concern of the case was how to deal with the infringing drives. Article 11.17 of Decree No. 99/2013/ND-CP of the Government on sanctioning of administrative violations in industrial property sets out two remedial measures for infringing goods, namely destruction and removal of infringing elements. Under Article 4.2(d) of Circular 11, the more serious measure of destruction can be applied if: (1) the infringing elements cannot be removed from the goods; or (2) the removal is not able to completely prevent future infringement.

In this case, the infringing elements could not be removed from the hard drives due to the technical design. In addition, the drives had already been refurbished at least once – removal of the infringing elements could not ensure the prevention of a recurring violation. Thus, while only one of the two conditions is required for the destruction measure to be applied, these goods met both conditions. Finally, customs decided to destroy all 1,000 drives bearing the concerned trademarks.

Import of Prohibited Goods

In addition to the infringement charge, the importer was imposed an additional fine of VND 30 million (about USD 1,333) for the import of prohibited goods, as Vietnam essentially forbids the importation of any secondhand/refurbished IT products, per Decree No. 187/2013/ND-CP and Decision No. 18/2016/QD-TTg of the Prime Minister. In total, customs imposed a fine of VND 108 million (about USD 4,800) for two acts of infringement. This fine is unprecedented and considered one of the highest sanctions ever imposed by the Customs Department of Hai Phong for IP infringement.

This case shows the vital role of customs recordal and seizure in IP enforcement in Vietnam. To the best of our knowledge, this was the first time in Vietnam that a huge quantity of refurbished goods was blocked and later destroyed as a result of a trademark infringement charge in parallel with allegation of prohibited goods (refurbished IT products). The Hai Phong Customs Department’s decisions are expected to be obvious precedents for cases related to suspension of the clearance of goods in the future.

Download Full Article
Related Professionals
Son Duc Nguyen
Email

Practices

Intellectual Property

RELATED INSIGHTS​ 

April 30, 2026
Vietnam’s Decree No. 134/2026/ND‑CP, which took effect on 9 April 2026, plays an important role in detailing and implementing Vietnam’s Intellectual Property (IP) Law in the context of rapid digital transformation and the growing application of artificial intelligence (AI). The new decree provides comprehensive guidance on the application of copyright and related‑rights regulations, addressing key issues such as authorship, ownership, statutory exceptions and limitations, registration procedures, and enforcement mechanisms. Through these measures, Decree 134 seeks to achieve an appropriate balance between safeguarding the legitimate interests of rightsholders and fostering innovation, research, and technological advancement, thereby strengthening the state’s framework for the effective management, protection, and exploitation of intellectual property in the digital and AI‑driven environment. Some notable aspects of Decree 134 are discussed below. Copyright for AI-Created Works Decree 134 provides important guidance on the determination of copyright and related rights in works created with the assistance of AI. Article 5a reaffirms the principle that human creativity remains central to copyright protection, clarifying that copyright or related rights arise only where a human makes a substantial and decisive intellectual contribution, exercises effective control over the creative outcome, and assumes responsibility for the content and its legality. At the same time, the provision confirms that AI is regarded solely as a technological tool rather than a rights‑holding subject, thus ensuring consistency with the fundamental concepts of authorship and ownership under the IP Law. By introducing requirements on transparency, proof of human contribution, and compliance with AI‑specific labelling and technical marking obligations, Decree 134 establishes a clear and enforceable legal framework for the responsible use of AI in creative activities. Lawful Use of Copyrighted Texts and Data Article 37a of Decree 134 sets out the specific conditions under which copyrighted texts and data may be lawfully used for scientific research, experimentation,
Read More
April 29, 2026
Across the region, local brands have become key drivers of economic growth, cultural identity, and innovation, and Myanmar is no exception. From traditional products and creative industries to modern startups and small and medium‑sized enterprises (SMEs), Myanmar’s local brands are increasingly shaping domestic markets. However, as local brands grow, they also face higher risks of imitation, misuse, and unfair competition. In this context, protecting brand identity, creativity, and innovation through proper intellectual property (IP) strategies is essential to ensure that Myanmar’s homegrown businesses can grow sustainably, compete confidently, and retain the value of what they create. The Key IP Laws for Local Brands In 2019, Myanmar enacted a comprehensive suite of four IP laws, aligning the nation’s IP enforcement framework with international standards. Trademark Law 2019: This law introduced the “first-to-file” system into the country, with trademark rights primarily obtained through registration with the Intellectual Property Department (IPD). Trademarks protect brand names, logos, and other signs that distinguish goods or services. Registration grants the exclusive rights to use the mark and to prevent others from using identical or confusingly similar marks. Each registration lasts for 10 years from the filing date and can be renewed for subsequent 10-year periods. Copyright Law 2019: Copyright, which arises automatically upon creation, protects literary, artistic, musical, and audiovisual works, including software, advertisements, artwork, and social media content. While registration with the IPD is not mandatory under this law, it can be helpful for establishing evidence and supporting any future enforcement. The terms of protection for economic rights associated with copyrights vary depending on the type of work involved. In contrast, the protection for moral rights lasts indefinitely—continuing even after the author’s death. Industrial Design Law 2019: Under this law, any industrial design that is new and independently created can be filed with the
Read More
April 21, 2026
Vietnam continues to refine its intellectual property framework to align with the 2025 amendments to the Law on Intellectual Property (IP Law). On March 31, 2026, the government issued Decree 100/2026/ND-CP (Decree 100), which substantially amends Decree 65/2023/ND-CP detailing the implementation of the IP Law (Decree 65). On the same day, the Ministry of Science and Technology released Circular 10/2026/TT-BKHCN (Circular 10), providing detailed procedural guidance and new forms. Both instruments took effect on April 1, 2026, along with the amended IP Law. While the updates touch on every IP right, trademark owners and brand strategists will find several practical and forward-looking changes that directly affect filing strategy, examination timelines, portfolio management, and enforcement readiness. 1. Fast-Track Substantive Examination for Eligible Applications One of the most business-friendly innovations is the new fast-track substantive examination pathway for applications meeting specified eligibility criteria. Successful fast-track applications enjoy a shortened substantive examination period of three months. This offers a significant competitive edge for tech-driven or regulated-sector brands. If the mark is identical or similar to a mark in another person’s trademark application with an earlier filing date in the case of a priority application that has not yet been processed, the fast-track process will return to the ordinary process. However, the law does not touch on cases where marks under fast-track examination face office action due to other reasons (i.e. lack of distinctiveness, confusingly similar to others’ copyright, trade name, industrial design, etc.) 2. AI-Generated Trademarks Receive Clear Protection Pathway Decree 100 explicitly addresses the use of artificial intelligence (AI) in IP creation, amending Article 10a of Decree 65 to confirm that trademarks created with AI systems are fully protectable, provided they meet the standard requirements of registration. Trademarks face no additional “human authorship” hurdle (unlike patents or industrial designs). Brand owners
Read More
April 20, 2026
Myanmar’s industrial design registration regime has been steadily gaining momentum since the country officially began accepting applications under the Industrial Design Law of 2019. The Industrial Design Division of Myanmar’s Intellectual Property Department (IPD) has actively advanced examination and registration procedures, and as of March 2026, approximately 300 industrial design applications have been published in the IPD’s publicly accessible database—a meaningful milestone in the development of Myanmar’s emerging intellectual property framework. This figure reflects only published applications; additional filings remain pending and will be published after the conclusion of ongoing examination. Filing Requirements in Practice Compliance with a defined set of mandatory requirements is the foundation for filing a valid design application. These mandatory particulars must be provided at the time of filing in order to establish a filing date. These include the applicant’s and creator’s identifying details, a notarized appointment of representative form, the Locarno Classification of the associated product, and a set of graphic representations of the design across multiple standard views. Applicants must also provide a written description of the design and, where applicable, information relating to any priority claim or request for deferred publication. Filing fees are payable at the time of submission. Beyond these core requirements, applicants typically need to provide supplementary documentation, either at the time of filing or in response to a formality examination. This may include evidence of the applicant’s legal entitlement to the design—particularly where the applicant and creator are different parties—as well as supporting corporate and authorization documents. Where priority rights are claimed, the relevant documents must generally be submitted within three months of the Myanmar filing date, with certified English translations required for any non-English priority applications. The supplementary requirements may vary depending on the nature of the application and the examiner’s requests during the formality examination process.
Read More