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 16, 2024

Vietnam Issues New Decree on Administrative Sanctions in Industrial Property

Subscribe to Updates

On May 4, 2024, the Vietnamese government issued Decree No. 46/2024/ND-CP (“Decree 46”) amending and supplementing certain articles of Decree No. 99/2013/ND-CP dated August 29, 2013, on administrative sanctions in industrial property, as amended and supplemented in 2021 (“Decree 99”). Decree 46, which will come into force on July 1, 2024, is designed to bring Decree 99 in line with the amended IP Law of 2022.

Some of the notable amendments of Decree 46 are discussed below.

New Infringing Acts

Decree 46 added the following new infringing acts subject to sanctions, which had not been set out in the former decree:

  • Use of patents, utility solutions, layout designs, or industrial designs without paying compensation according to the provisions on temporary rights specified in Article 131 of the amended IP Law.
  • Accepting a trademark license not in the form of a written contract in the case of using the licensed trademark on goods or packaging.
  • Failure to notify clients of costs, charges, and fees related to procedures for establishing and protecting industrial property rights.
  • Deceiving clients in the course of entering into and performing industrial property representative service contracts, but not to the extent of criminal prosecution, or forcing customers to enter into and perform industrial property representative service contracts.

Although these acts are not common occurrences, it is nevertheless important to have clear regulations in order to ensure consistency with the amended IP Law and overcome difficulties and obstacles if such acts are committed in practice.

Amendments and Supplements

Decree 46 adopted amendments and supplements to main sanctions, additional sanctions, and remedial measures, specifically:

  • The monetary fine imposed for violations against trade secrets is VND 50 million to VND 100 million (approx. USD 2,000 – USD 4,000), a large increase compared to the VND 5 million to VND 15 million (approx. USD 200 – USD 600) in the previous decree. This is a recognition of the importance of trade secrets, which cover information acquired from an enterprise’s financial and intellectual investments, and can be crucial to the enterprise’s success.
  • The former additional sanction of “suspension of activities of production or trading in violating goods or services for 1 to 3 months” has been amended to “complete or partial suspension of production, trading, or service activities for 1 to 3 months.” This regulation seems broader and vaguer, as it does not specify that only activities related to violating goods or services are affected, and may trigger confusion with the enforcement authorities.
  • Complete or partial suspension of industrial property representative service activities for 1 to 3 months is imposed on violations of industrial property representative service organizations. Decree 99 only imposed similar sanctions on individuals, not organizations, so this change was absolutely necessary. However, the term “partial suspension” sounds vague as aforementioned.
  • Forcible removal from the Vietnamese territory or forcible re-export is applied to imported or transited goods bearing counterfeit trademarks or geographical indications. Pursuant to the former decree, forcible removal was applied for transited goods infringing industrial property rights while forcible re-export was imposed on goods bearing counterfeit trademarks or geographical indications. Given the new regulation, such remedial measures are no longer imposed for imported and transited lookalikes.
  • The measure of mandatory restoration to original status replaces the measure of mandatory recovery of dispersed exhibits and means of violation found in the former decree. This regulation is rather abstract, and may be difficult to enforce.
  • Forced compensation payment is added as a remedial measure in Decree 46, and applies to the act of using patents, utility solutions, layout designs, and industrial designs without paying compensation as mentioned above.

Temporary Hold on Domain Names

Decree 46 refers to the preventive and security measure of temporarily holding domain names, which  is imposed on the act of possessing or using a domain name that is identical or confusingly similar to another person’s registered trademark, trade name, or geographical indication, which the party does not have the right to use, with malicious intent or to take advantage of the prestige or reputation of the respective trademark, trade name, or geographical indication in order to gain illegal profit.

The authority/agency handling the case will need to cooperate with the Vietnam Internet Network Information Center and the registrar to perform such temporary hold of infringing domain names.

Remedial Measures After Statute of Limitations Expires

Decree 46 also stipulates that when the statute of limitations for administrative sanctions expires, resulting in the enforcement authorities refusing to handle a case, remedial measures can still be imposed. This regulation was not mentioned in Decree 99, but is consistent with the Law on Handling Administrative Violations.

Competence of Police

The competence of the police is extended under Decree 46; specifically, the police are entitled to handle cases connected to the following acts in industrial property assessment activities (activities related to, for example, determining if marks, designs, etc., are infringements):

  • Taking advantage of the role of examiner and assessment activities for personal interests.
  • Deliberately making false assessment conclusions.
  • Modifying, erasing, or committing other acts that falsify assessment documents.
  • Providing untruthful information to relevant agencies during the process of registering for an examination of industrial property assessment profession, requesting industrial property examiner cards, and requesting recognition of industrial property assessment organization.
  • Conducting assessment in cases in which assessment must be refused as prescribed by law.

This extension of the police’s competence seems to be unnecessary, and the police might be reluctant to handle these cases in practice because, with respect to IP infringements, the police normally prefer dealing with counterfeit goods rather than infringing acts connected to paperwork.

From the perspective of IP rights-holders, it would be more beneficial to extend the police’s competence to handling manufacturers of lookalikes. Under prevailing regulations, only the inspectorates of the Ministry of Science and Technology (MOST) or the Departments of Science and Technology (DOST) at the city or provincial level are entitled to handle lookalike cases of local manufacturers. However, MOST is based in Hanoi, and MOST officials infrequently travel to other cities/provinces, while the DOST inspectorates, even in Ho Chi Minh City, tend to have a shortage of manpower for handling IP infringements. Hence, taking action against manufacturers of lookalikes usually does not happen immediately. In addition, MOST and DOST tend to request the manufacturers to attend a meeting in which the authorities explain the laws and request the manufacturers to cease making the lookalikes without conducting any inspections into the manufacturers’ locations and seizing infringing goods. Such settlement has little deterrent effect when no sanctions are imposed on manufacturers. Given this, additional assistance from the police in matters related to manufacturers of lookalikes would be welcome.

Invalidation Matters

Under existing regulations, administrative authorities like MOST have faced numerous challenges in managing IP-related complaints and disputes when the adverse party submits an invalidation request related to the concerned IP subject-matter to the IP Office. This often leads to the suspension of the case due to the pending invalidation, and long delays in the settlement process.

However, under Decree 46, when these situations arise, the competent authority must request clarification from the IP Office on the status of the IP rights, and the IP Office must respond within 10 days of receiving the request. Subsequently, the competent authority will base their decision on whether to continue handling the case on the opinion provided by the IP Office. This should help to greatly speed up the administrative sanctioning process and help curtail ongoing infringement.

Conclusion

Decree 46 is the second amendment to the administrative sanctions in industrial property, and its issuance demonstrates that the Vietnamese government has listened to the opinions of IP practitioners and organizations to further improve the relevant regulations. The new decree includes some needed amendments and supplements; however, some amendments of still remain vague and could be difficult to enforce. Decree 46 takes effect very soon; it will be interesting to see how effectively the amendments are applied in practice in the coming time.

Related Professionals

Practices

Dispute Resolution and Litigation

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 4, 2026
Thailand’s cabinet has approved two draft amendments aimed at improving labor-related judicial proceedings. The proposed amendments to the Act on the Establishment of Labor Courts and Labor Case Procedure B.E. 2522 (1979) and the Act on Procedures for Human Trafficking Cases B.E. 2559 (2016) are intended to make the process more efficient, appropriate, and fair. Key elements of these proposed amendments are outlined below. Expansion of Labor Court Jurisdiction Under the current framework, labor courts generally hear labor disputes, while criminal offenses under labor laws are handled separately. Matters involving both labor and criminal issues may therefore require the parties to pursue proceedings before different courts. To address this, the proposed amendments would expand the jurisdiction of labor courts to cover certain criminal offenses under labor laws. The government states that the change is intended to allow related issues to be heard by judges with expertise in labor law and to reduce the need for parallel proceedings. The proposed amendments also set out the following rules for cases involving multiple offenses. Where a single act gives rise to multiple offenses and at least one of those offenses falls within the jurisdiction of the labor court, the labor court may hear the related offenses as part of the same case. Where multiple connected acts give rise to different offenses, the labor court may hear the matters together or transfer part of the case to the appropriate court, taking into account convenience and the interests of justice. Criminal Offenses Covered The proposed amendments would extend labor court jurisdiction to criminal offenses under 11 labor-related laws, including laws concerning: Home workers protection Labor protection Labor protection in fisheries work Employment and job-seeker protection Management of foreign workers Social security Occupational safety, health, and working environment Compensation Maritime labor State enterprise labor relations
Read More