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

July 6, 2021

Vietnam: New Draft Decree to Amend Administrative Sanctions in IP

Subscribe to Updates

In June 2021, Vietnam’s Ministry of Science and Technology (MOST) issued a new draft decree amending several provisions of Decree No. 99/2013/ND-CP of the government dated August 29, 2013, on the sanctioning of administrative violations in industrial property (the “Draft Decree”). The Draft Decree seeks to address practitioners’ challenges while applying the law, and to facilitate the more streamlined enforcement of administrative sanctions in industrial property. Along with more than 30 other decrees, the Draft Decree is part of the government’s comprehensive plan to ensure all related legislation is in line with the amended Law on Handling Administrative Violations (passed on November 13, 2020) when it takes effect on January 1, 2022.

Key Changes in the Draft Decree

The most visible change in the Draft Decree is the inclusion of export among activities subject to administrative sanctions if goods that infringe industrial property rights (“IPR”) are found. In the past, the enforcement authorities were often reluctant to handle exported goods due to the lack of regulations. MOST’s inclusion reflects consistency with Article 74 of the Law on Customs of 2014, under which IPR holders can request inspection and monitoring or temporary suspension of customs formalities for exported goods that show signs of IPR infringement.

The removal of cross-border transit from all categories of administrative sanctions is another modification influenced by the Law on Customs (Article 73), which excludes transited goods from being subject to suspension of customs formalities.

Under the Draft Decree, the confiscation of raw materials, materials, and means used to manufacture or trade infringing goods is only applied if deliberate and serious violations are committed during the manufacture, export, import, trade, transport, or storage for sale of goods bearing counterfeit marks or geographical indications. Other than that, state authorities may no longer force the additional noncommercial use, re-export, or destruction of such materials when the corresponding infringing goods themselves are forcibly put to use for noncommercial purposes, re-exported, or destroyed.

The Draft Decree alters the scope of sanctions in some other respects. For example, MOST has limited the period of limitation to impose administrative sanctions on IPR violations to two years, and clarified the trigger dates for specific instances. While the Draft Decree clarifies and limits the ability to apply supplemental sanctions and remedies in all categories, its language is still ambiguous as to the level of the violation, in terms of nature and severity, that would trigger these measures.

On the other hand, the Draft Decree expands the seizure authority in many provisions. Under the current regulations, the authorities can only confiscate material evidence and means used in the commission of administrative violations when the total value of such materials does not exceed the set fine amount for the violation. Under the Draft Decree, the total value of confiscated materials may be up to twice the set fine amount.

Some Items Notably Left Unchanged

While the Draft Decree has made significant efforts to clarify provisions on the form and scope of sanctions, it retains largely the same provisions on the handling of sanctions for administrative violations of IPR. Most of the state agencies and personnel authorized to impose sanctions remain the same. The role of the Market Surveillance Department is still confined to handling goods bearing counterfeit marks or geographical indications, and a few other violations such as unfair competition, but only in domestic trade and transport of goods. In other words, patent infringement remains outside the scope of the Market Surveillance Department’s authority. In addition, contrary to their proactive role in the new Law on Handling Administrative Violations, police agencies still assume a secondary role of performing information and evidence discovery for provision to other agencies.

Most importantly, the Draft Decree still has not removed the regulation related to the temporary suspension of dispute settlement while a request for invalidation of an IP subject such as a trademark or patent is pending. Under the current law, if the adverse party submitted a request for invalidation, they can request the authority to temporarily suspend the case until the IP Office issues its final decision on the invalidation. This is an important issue, especially considering violators often take advantage of this regulation as a tactic to continue infringing activities and evade sanctions.

Related Professionals

Practices

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 2, 2026
Thailand and China have a longstanding and significant trade relationship, which increasingly extends to e-commerce and digitally enabled supply chains. While these channels create new opportunities for businesses to reach consumers across borders, their growth also brings greater exposure to intellectual property (IP) infringement across jurisdictions and online platforms. Effective cooperation between the two countries’ enforcement authorities has therefore become increasingly important. To strengthen cooperation in this area, Thailand and China signed a memorandum of understanding (MOU) on IP enforcement in Beijing on July 20, 2026, during the Thai prime minister’s official visit to China. Officially titled “Memorandum of Understanding Between the State Administration for Market Regulation of the People’s Republic of China and the Ministry of Commerce of the Kingdom of Thailand on Cooperation in the Field of Intellectual Property Enforcement,” the MOU forms part of a broader bilateral agenda covering industrial and supply chains, participation by micro, small, and medium-sized enterprises (MSMEs), cooperation associated with the ASEAN–China Free Trade Area 3.0, and progress on the registration of Thai geographical indications in China. The MOU establishes a bilateral framework for cooperation and coordination in five broad areas: Strengthening dialogue in IP enforcement; Enhancing information sharing; Facilitating the enforcement of IP rights in cases arising in the parties’ domestic markets and on online platforms, in accordance with their respective domestic laws; Promoting cooperation in IP enforcement training and human resource development; and Undertaking other cooperation activities agreed upon by both sides. The Department of Intellectual Property (DIP) will serve as the principal coordinating agency for Thailand, while the Bureau of Law Enforcement and Inspection in China’s State Administration for Market Regulation (SAMR) will serve in that role for China. The framework is particularly relevant to the growth of e-commerce, as it covers infringement in the domestic markets and on
Read More