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

August 26, 2014

Unfair Competition: Vietnam’s Conflicting Decrees

Subscribe to Updates
Informed Counsel

On July 21, 2014, the Vietnam Government issued Decree 71/2014/ND-CP (Decree 71), which sets out the prescribed remedies for competition violations. Among these include sanctions in cases of antitrust, unfair dealings, and unfair competition. While these measures are a step in the right direction, they potentially conflict with last year’s Decree 99/2013/ND-CP on administrative sanctions in industrial property (Decree 99), complicating the enforcement of Decree 99.

Conflicts with Decree 99

Decree 71 restates the remedies in Decree 99 that are available in cases of unfair competition relating to industrial property. As a consequence of this restatement, a conflict arises between how the two decrees treat remedies, proceedings, and competent authorities.

In terms of remedies, Decree 71 states different levels of fines as compared to Decree 99. For example, Decree 71 lowers the ceiling fine to just VND 200 million (USD 9,430) on infringing juristic persons (i.e., companies) who palm-off their goods as the goods of other entities, whereas the same fine under Decree 99 is VND 500 million. For infringing individuals, the maximum fine drops from VND 250 million under Decree 99 to VND 100 million under Decree 71. Whether such lower levels of fines still act as a deterrent is questionable.

Although Decree 71 decreases the amount of fines for palming-off, it raises the fines imposed on cyber-squatting, the unauthorized use of trademarks by agents, and the infringement of trade secrets. Decree 71 also raises the fine from VND 10 million to VND 40 million on representatives or agents of brand owners who, without any authorization or justification of the owner, use marks that are protected in a foreign country and are also a contracting party to the Paris Convention. Additionally, Decree 71 applies the same fine to the registration or use of domain names that cause harm to the reputation and goodwill of trademarks, trade names, or geographical indications. It also creates a range of fines from VND 10 million to VND 30 million to sanction any unauthorized access, use, or disclosure of trade secrets. These fines are slightly higher than those under Decree 99.

As far as supplementary measures are concerned, Decree 71 leaves out some important measures that could render enforcement actions ineffective. Under Articles 28 and 29, Decree 71 provides for such supplementary measures as confiscation of the infringing goods and means whereby the violations are committed and confiscation of the profits earned from the unfair dealing. Bearing in mind these measures, brand owners would be uncertain as to whether they can recover a disputed domain name, force an infringer to change an infringing company name, or seek removal and/or destruction of the infringing elements of the infringing goods. Given the comprehensive and detailed measures under Decree 99, Decree 71 seems to be a step backwards in the fight against unfair competition acts relating to industrial property.

Decree 71 reduces the number of choices that competent authorities have to deal with unfair competition. Under the Decree, the only authority authorized to tackle misconduct relating to industrial property is the Vietnam Competition Authority of the Ministry of Industry and Trade. The Decree clearly rules out the other agencies that previously held such authority under Decree 99, including the Inspectorate of Science and Technology, Customs, the Inspectorate of Information and Communication, and the Market Control Bureau.

Under Article 43 of Decree 71, enforcement actions must follow specific proceedings laid out in Decree 116/2005/ND-CP (Decree 116) to deal with violations of competition regulations. Meanwhile, Decree 99 requires competent authorities to carry out enforcement actions in accordance with its administrative procedure and the Law on Handling Administrative Violations. Essentially, the proceedings under Decree 116 are quasi-administrative procedures and in the vicinity of administrative procedures and civil proceedings.

The proceedings do bring about positive progress when enabling the competent authorities to handle the disputes ex parte. Such ex parte resolutions are not available under the administrative measures governed by Decree 99 and the Law on Handling Administrative Violations. With the ex parte regime, Decree 71 can address cases where the infringers cannot be tracked down or disappear during the enforcement action.

Validity of Decree 99

Given the prevailing laws and regulations, it seems likely that Decree 71 will take precedence over Decree 99 in rulings on misconduct governed by both Decree 71 and Decree 99. While both decrees were promulgated by the government, Decree 71 was introduced at a later time. In accordance with Article 83.3 of the Law on the Promulgation of Legal Documents of 2008, the competent authorities will therefore give priority to Decree 71 in handling unfair competition relating to industrial property.

In addition, Articles 198.3 and 211.3 of the Law on Intellectual Property grant competent authorities the power to sanction acts of unfair competition relating to industrial property in cases of unfair competition. Accordingly, it seems that Decree 71 will supersede Decree 99 in dealing with unfair conduct cases relating to industrial property when it takes force on September 15, 2014.

Download Full Article
Related Professionals

Practices

Intellectual Property

Location

RELATED INSIGHTS​ 

July 24, 2026
As food innovation continues to accelerate, manufacturers are increasingly introducing ingredients derived from new sources, produced using novel technologies, or lacking a significant history of human consumption. While these innovations create new opportunities for the food industry, they also raise important questions regarding consumer safety. For this reason, many jurisdictions, including Thailand, the European Union, Australia and New Zealand, Canada, and Singapore, require a premarket safety assessment for novel food ingredients before they can be placed on the market. The objective of this assessment is to ensure that each ingredient is safe for its intended use and level of consumption, does not present toxicological, allergenic, microbiological, or nutritional concerns, and will not mislead consumers. Scientific authorities typically evaluate the ingredient’s identity, manufacturing process, composition, specifications, anticipated dietary exposure, toxicological information, nutritional impact, and history of use before determining whether it can be marketed. Against this background, the Thai Food and Drug Administration (FDA) recently took an important step toward improving regulatory transparency by publishing, for the first time, a consolidated public list of substances that have successfully completed the Thai FDA’s safety assessment process, including substances determined to be novel foods and those determined not to fall within the novel food category. The list identifies the approved substances, the corresponding manufacturers or importers, approval dates, and the approved conditions of use. Although the publication does not change the existing legal framework governing novel food approvals, it provides businesses with greater visibility into the Thai FDA’s regulatory precedents and the types of substances that have previously been accepted through the safety assessment process. The full announcement is available on the Thai FDA’s website. As the list is now publicly available, it also provides useful insight into the types of substances that have successfully completed the Thai FDA’s safety assessment process.
Read More
July 24, 2026
Indonesia has updated its fee framework for intellectual property (IP)-related government services, with implications for IP owners, licensees, lenders, digital platforms, and businesses operating in the country. Government Regulation No. 30 of 2026 on Types and Tariffs of Non-Tax State Revenue Applicable to the Ministry of Law (GR 30/2026) was promulgated on July 2, 2026, and will take effect on August 1, 2026. Key Takeaways GR 30/2026, which replaces the relevant IP service fees under Government Regulation No. 45 of 2024, reorganizes the fee schedule into separate categories for copyright, industrial designs, patents, layout designs of integrated circuits, trade secrets, trademarks, geographical indications, IP enforcement, and other categories. The most commercially relevant changes include a new copyright recordation tariff exemption for songs and music, higher fees for several trademark and geographical indication services, new IP enforcement service fees, and a new fee type for registration of fiduciary security over IP rights objects. In addition, this is the first major update for trademark fees in approximately 10 years. GR 30/2026 is significant not only as a fee update but also as a further indication of Indonesia’s increasing recognition of IP as a financeable commercial asset. By expressly assigning fees to the registration of fiduciary security over IP rights objects, the regulation places IP-backed collateral filings within the Ministry of Law’s administrative service framework. While GR 30/2026 does not create a new secured-transactions regime, this development is relevant for lenders, borrowers, and IP owners structuring financing arrangements secured by trademarks, patents, copyrights, industrial designs, or other registrable IP rights in Indonesia. Copyright: New Fee Exemption for Songs and Music Recordation For copyright, GR 30/2026 creates a fee-exempt category for recordation of works or related-rights products for songs or music, while maintaining a separate category for other works and related-rights products. It
Read More
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