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​ 

June 29, 2026
Thailand’s cabinet has approved the draft Act on Liability for Defective Goods, commonly called Thailand’s “Lemon Law.” The Draft Act is currently pending consideration by Parliament. The draft law aims to strengthen buyers’ position in pursuing cases against sellers. While the Civil and Commercial Code offers provisions governing liability for defective goods, it is difficult in practice for buyers to successfully make a claim against sellers, particularly where defects are latent and not discoverable at the time of sale or delivery. By introducing product-specific rules and clearer remedies, the new law is intended to modernize Thailand’s consumer protection framework and align it more closely with international standards, and to help relieve the buyer’s burden of proof against the seller in product liability cases. If enacted, the draft act will take effect 180 days after publication in the Government Gazette, giving businesses a transition period to assess their compliance obligations. This article provides an overview of the key provisions of the draft act and highlights some practical considerations for businesses operating in Thailand. Scope and Key Definitions The draft act applies to sellers—defined as persons who sell goods in the ordinary course of business—and protects buyers, a term defined broadly to include not just the original purchaser but also transferees and successors in title. This expands the class of people who can bring claims. The law does not apply to used goods, live animals, or goods exempted by future ministerial regulation. It also leaves intact any separate warranties, promises, advertisements, or other guarantees a seller has given; those remain enforceable alongside the new statutory rights. General Liability for Defective Goods Sellers are liable for defects that exist at the time of delivery, regardless of whether the seller knew about them. Liability arises where a defect reduces: The benefit intended under
Read More
June 24, 2026
Patent enablement requirements are provided under Article 102 of Vietnam’s Law on Intellectual Property (IP Law). In particular, a patent specification must “fully and clearly disclose the nature of the invention to such an extent that, based on the specification, a person having ordinary skill in the relevant art can implement the invention.” In pharmaceutical and biotechnology patents, this requirement is more complicated and subject to more rigorous assessment. The Patent Examination Guidelines (Guidelines) of the Intellectual Property Office of Vietnam (IP Office) were amended in March 2026 to introduce Annexes III and IV for the pharmaceutical and biotechnology sectors, in which Annex III provides detailed guidelines on the assessment of specification requirements. These amendments were made under a project for strengthening capacity in industrial property examination between the Japan International Cooperation Agency (JICA) and the IP Office. Annex III provides detailed instructions on how examiners assess enablement in a pharmaceutical or biotechnology application, and offers examples of acceptable and unacceptable descriptions with regard to the enablement aspect. Enablement Requirements in Pharma and Biotech Patents Article 12.7 of Circular 10/2026/TT-BKHCN (Circular 10) adds to the requirements of Article 102 of the IP Law that the description must demonstrate the novelty, inventive step, and industrial applicability of the technical solution. For pharmaceutical composition subject matters, Article 12.9 of Circular 10 sets out that the description must present the results of clinical trials and/or the pharmacological effects of the claimed pharmaceutical composition, and must include at least the following information: Substance/mixture used. Testing method (system) employed. Information on the test results. Correlation between the pharmacological effects obtained from the tests and the application of the pharmaceutical product in the prevention, diagnosis, and treatment of diseases. The Guidelines note that pharmacological study results should be presented in a quantified manner, and pharmacological
Read More
June 22, 2026
Arbitrator independence and impartiality form the cornerstone of a legitimate arbitral process. Under section 19 of the Thai Arbitration Act B.E. 2545 (2002), prospective arbitrators must disclose circumstances likely to give rise to justifiable doubts as to their impartiality or independence, and existing arbitrators must do so throughout proceedings. This mirrors article 12 of the UNCITRAL Model Law. Yet despite this clear mandate, practical implementation varies significantly across Thailand’s arbitration landscape. Background Thailand’s two principal arbitration institutions, the Thai Arbitration Institute (TAI) and the Thailand Arbitration Center (THAC), both maintain procedures for addressing arbitrator challenges and require compliance with the statutory disclosure obligation. Under both sets of rules, any party wishing to challenge an arbitrator must submit a challenge application within fifteen days of becoming aware of the relevant facts, and a committee is appointed to consider the matter on a case-by-case basis. The TAI additionally prescribes its Code of Ethics and Conduct for Arbitrators to further emphasize the expectation of impartiality and transparency. However, Thailand’s arbitration ecosystem extends well beyond the TAI and THAC. Several sector-specific institutions also administer arbitral proceedings, including the Thai Commercial Arbitration Office under the Board of Trade of Thailand, the Arbitration Centre of the Office of the Insurance Commission, the Arbitration Centre of the Securities and Exchange Commission, the Office for the Prevention and Resolution of Disputes regarding Intellectual Property, and the Arbitration Centre of the Thai General Insurance Association. These institutions each operate under their own procedural rules, which were developed to serve particular industries and dispute profiles. The procedural mechanisms for securing and documenting an independence declaration are not uniformly established across these forums. Consequences of Procedural Inconsistency This creates a notable gap. Not all arbitration bodies have a formalized procedure requiring written independence statements before proceedings commence. Some tribunals proceed
Read More
June 16, 2026
The president of Thailand’s Supreme Court has issued new recommendations providing courts with criminal jurisdiction with a comprehensive framework for identifying and dismissing criminal cases brought in bad faith. Published in the Government Gazette on May 29, 2026, after being signed on May 25, the Recommendations of the President of the Supreme Court Concerning Bad-Faith Litigation in Criminal Cases B.E. 2569 were issued under Section 5 of the Act on the Organization of Courts of Justice. The recommendations took effect upon publication and represent a significant step in Thailand’s efforts to curb abusive criminal litigation, including strategic lawsuits against public participation (SLAPP). Background Section 161/1 of Thailand’s Criminal Procedure Code empowers courts to dismiss criminal cases filed dishonestly or with the intent to harass or take unfair advantage of a defendant. The new recommendations provide detailed guidance that courts previously lacked on identifying and handling such prosecutions. Definition of Bad-Faith Litigation Under recommendation 1, filing a criminal case in bad faith is defined broadly to encompass three categories: Harassment-type filings involving intimidation, threats, or creating unreasonable hardship for the defendant; Coercive filings designed to pressure the defendant into acting or refraining from acting for illegitimate benefit; and False or misleading filings that deliberately assert incorrect material facts or conceal such facts. Circumstances Indicating Bad Faith Recommendation 2 sets out specific circumstances that should raise a court’s suspicion that a filing may violate section 161/1. These include: Filing in a distant court far from the defendant’s domicile without benefiting the adjudication; Retaliation against the defendant’s advocacy for human rights, environmental protection, consumer rights, labor rights, or other public interests—effectively establishing an express anti-SLAPP framework; Retaliation against whistleblowers who disclosed corruption or unlawful conduct; Retaliation against individuals responsible for investigating the plaintiff’s wrongdoing or who concluded such an investigation; Filing multiple
Read More