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 13, 2026
When Decree No. 186/2026/ND-CP (Decree 186) takes effect on July 15, 2026, it will introduce the most significant reform of Vietnam’s administrative IP enforcement framework since Decree 99/2013/ND-CP was issued in 2013. These changes are expected to make administrative enforcement faster, more accessible, and better suited to the realities of modern IP disputes. Below are the principal reforms and their practical implications for rights holders and enforcement practitioners. The End of Notarization and Consular Legalization Among the most welcome procedural changes is the abolition of the notarization and consular legalization requirement for powers of attorney (POA) submitted in administrative enforcement proceedings. Under the previous regime, foreign rights holders were generally required to execute a POA, then have it notarized and consular legalized (if seeking customs recordal). In practice, this process frequently delayed enforcement by four to eight weeks, often long enough for infringing goods to disappear before authorities could intervene. Decree 186 removes this bottleneck, now requiring only an original or certified copy of the POA. If the document is in a foreign language, a Vietnamese translation is sufficient, provided it is certified by a competent authority or confirmed by the authorized Vietnamese IP representative. Consular legalization and notarization are no longer required. For rights holders, the practical impact is substantial. Administrative enforcement files that previously took weeks to prepare can now be completed in a matter of days, allowing much faster responses in time-sensitive matters such as warehouse raids, border interventions, and trade-fair enforcement. The decree also introduces a useful administrative simplification. Where an original POA has already been submitted to the same enforcement authority and remains valid, applicants may rely on a copy of that earlier submission by identifying the previous case file. This eliminates unnecessary duplication for rights holders pursuing multiple enforcement actions before the same
Read More
July 9, 2026
Recycling, upcycling, and refill-packaging models are now widely promoted as ways to reduce waste, lower carbon emissions, and respond to consumer demand for sustainable products. However, complications arise when these environmentally driven trends intersect with intellectual property law—particularly where reused or altered packaging continues to display third parties’ registered trademarks. Adding to this complexity, Thailand’s draft Sustainable Packaging Management Act aims to introduce new environmental compliance obligations that businesses must navigate alongside existing trademark concerns. Recycling and upcycling packaging may infringe trademark rights, especially in cases not protected by the first-sale doctrine—the principle that a trademark owner’s rights over a particular mark-bearing product end once the owner first sells it. Furthermore, even refill packaging carries legal risk due to specific statutory prohibitions under Thai law. Compounding these challenges, the draft Sustainable Packaging Management Act will impose extended producer responsibility (EPR) obligations on manufacturers and brand owners, requiring them to manage packaging throughout its lifecycle. These overlapping legal frameworks could deter manufacturers from pursuing ESG-aligned business models unless businesses understand how to navigate both trademark and environmental requirements. Under Thai law, this issue remains uncertain because the Trademark Act does not expressly codify the first sale doctrine, also known as the exhaustion of trademark rights. Generally, this doctrine provides that once a trademark owner has lawfully sold goods bearing its trademark, the owner’s right to control further resale of those particular goods is exhausted. The rationale is that the owner has already received commercial benefit from the first authorized sale; therefore, the purchaser should be free to resell or otherwise dispose of the goods. Although the doctrine is not expressly codified in the Trademark Act, Thai courts have recognized it in relation to genuine goods and parallel imports, as seen in a Supreme Court Judgment No. 2817/2543 in which the
Read More
July 6, 2026
Indonesia’s regulation on reporting online intellectual property (IP) infringement provides comprehensive procedural guidance for IP rights holders and their licensees in reporting online infringement complaints. Issued in December 2025 by the Ministry of Law as Regulation No. 47 of 2025 regarding Handling of Intellectual Property Infringement Reports in Electronic Systems, this regulation covers all types of IP rights. It also specifies documentation when reporting infringement, and lays out the procedures for examination, verification, and enforcement actions. Submission of Complaints Complainants may submit reports through the online system of the Directorate General of Intellectual Property (DGIP) or in person at the DGIP office. Complaints may also be filed through an authorized proxy. Under the regulation, complainants are required to provide the following information and documents: Personal details of the complainant; Brief description of the protected work or subject matter (i.e., type of IP and name or address of the infringing website, portal, account, or application, or a link to the location of the infringing content); Complete description of the alleged infringement; Certificate of registration or recordal of the relevant IP; Recordal of IP license agreement, if any; and Other supporting evidence. Verification and Examination Process Upon receiving a complaint, the responsible formality officer may request clarification or additional supporting documents. In the latter case, the complainant must then submit the necessary administrative documents within 14 days of the notification date. Once the documentation is deemed complete and sufficient, the case will be formally registered. Subsequently, the DGIP will establish a verification team to handle online IP violations, which will include the Civil Servant Investigator (PPNS), the Ministry of Communication and Digital Affairs, experts with relevant expertise in IP, and representatives from related associations such as AVISI (Indonesian Video Streaming Association). After examining the report, the team will prepare the Minutes
Read More
June 30, 2026
Customs recordation is an enforcement mechanism in Myanmar that enables intellectual property (IP) rights holders to seek prevention of the cross-border movement of infringing goods. The enactment of Myanmar’s IP laws in 2019 has enabled customs recordation for registered marks and copyrights under the Trademark Law 2019 and the Copyright Law 2019. By contrast, the Patent Law 2019 and the Industrial Design Law 2019 do not provide a practical framework for customs recordation, and accordingly such rights are not subject to the customs recordation regime. Under the Trademark Law 2019, rights holders may apply for customs recordation and may also ask the Customs Department to suspend the release of goods suspected of bearing counterfeit marks. Likewise, the Copyright Law 2019 allows for customs intervention in relation to pirated works. These provisions reflect Myanmar’s gradual alignment with international standards on border measures, although the implementation framework remains at a relatively early stage of development. Customs Recordation Pursuant to the Trademark Law 2019 and the Copyright Law 2019, the relevant authorities have issued customs rules concerning the protection of registered marks and copyrights. In practice, the process generally begins with the submission of an application to the Customs Department together with supporting documentation. This typically includes proof of registration in Myanmar; details of the rights holder, applicant, and any authorized representative; and a comprehensive description of the genuine goods. Product identification materials—such as photographs, packaging samples, and distinguishing features—are particularly important in helping customs officers identify suspected infringing goods. A recordation remains valid for two years from the date of approval. It may be renewed for additional two-year terms, provided that the renewal application is filed within the thirty days prior to expiry for marks and up to thirty days in advance of the expiry date for copyrights, in accordance with
Read More