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​ 

December 5, 2025
One morning, a California-based company mapping its Southeast Asia rollout opened an unexpected cease-and-desist letter from a Vietnamese IP firm. To the company’s surprise, the letter asserted that a local client already owned the company’s brand in Vietnam and threatened legal action. This is not an isolated incident. In another recent matter in the sports industry, a squatter demanded at least USD 48,000 from our client to “resolve” a similar conflict. For brands entering Vietnam or expanding distribution there, these tactics can create acute risk at precisely the point at which market momentum is building. Vietnam’s rapid economic growth and deepening integration into global trade have made it an increasingly attractive destination for multinational brands. Those same dynamics have intensified a longstanding issue: trademark squatting. Vietnam has modernized its IP framework over the past decade, but its strict first-to-file trademark system continues to incentivize opportunistic filings by parties with no legitimate interest in a mark. As more foreign brands build their reputation abroad before turning to Vietnam, squatters remain alert to timing gaps and enforcement frictions. The First-to-File System: Advantages and Vulnerabilities Vietnam adheres closely to the first-to-file principle under its Law on Intellectual Property. In practice, exclusive trademark rights belong to whoever submits the earliest valid application to the Vietnam Intellectual Property Office, regardless of prior use in Vietnam. This approach offers administrative clarity and reduces evidentiary burdens compared to use-based jurisdictions. Yet it also creates fertile conditions for squatting. Bad-faith actors regularly monitor foreign markets, identify brands gaining traction, and move quickly to register those marks domestically, often long before the genuine owner enters the market or prioritizes local filings. By the time the true brand seeks protection, the squatter’s application (or registration) stands as a legal obstacle, pushing businesses toward costly oppositions, cancellations, or uncomfortable negotiations
Read More
November 26, 2025
On November 21, 2025, Myanmar’s Ministry of Commerce (MOC) issued Notification No. 103/2025 promulgating the Geographical Indication Rules (GI Rules), establishing a comprehensive framework for the registration and administration of geographical indications (GI), which are primarily governed by the Trademark Law of 2019. On the same day, the MOC released Notification No. 104/2025 specifying the required forms for GI-related matters. The GI Rules establish a comprehensive set of procedures for the entire GI application process, including filing applications, oppositions, cancellations, and invalidations, and appointing a local representative for GI-related matters. Under the Trademark Law and the GI Rules, domestic and foreign legal entities (organizations) that formally represent a defined group of stakeholders (such as producers or manufacturers of natural products or resources, agricultural products, handicrafts, or industrial products) and other competent authorities from government departments are eligible to apply for GI registration with the Intellectual Property Department (IPD) in Myanmar. Application A GI application can be submitted in either English or Myanmar language electronically, in person, or via post. Foreign applicants seeking to register a GI in Myanmar are required to submit a copy of the registration certificate from their country of origin with the GI application. This certificate must explicitly state the GI name of the protected product. Notably, foreign applicants are mandated to appoint a local representative in Myanmar to act on their behalf for GI-related matters with the IPD and appeal-related matters with the IP Agency. The form for appointing the local representative must be duly notarized in the applicant’s home country to ensure its legal validity and acceptance in accordance with the GI Rules. Application for Use of GI Logo Pursuant to the GI Rules, any interested individual, local or foreign, may submit an application to the IPD for authorization to use the GI logo,
Read More
November 21, 2025
Tilleke & Gibbins has contributed the Thailand chapter to Asia IP’s ASEAN Guide to IP Protection 2025, an annual reference covering key developments and practical considerations for intellectual property systems across Southeast Asia. The chapter offers an overview of Thailand’s current legal framework for the protection of trademarks, patents, industrial designs, and copyrights. It summarizes registration requirements, recent regulatory updates, and procedural considerations relevant to rights holders and practitioners. The chapter offers actionable insights for rights holders at every stage of the IP lifecycle and addresses practical strategies for managing portfolios, anticipating enforcement challenges, and maximizing the value of IP assets. The authors also highlight recent trends and developments in Thai IP law, ensuring that readers are equipped with the latest knowledge to inform their decisions. The complete Thailand chapter can be downloaded through the button below, and the chapter is also available on the Asia IP website.
Read More
November 13, 2025
Tilleke & Gibbins has contributed the Thailand chapter to Franchise 2026, part of the International Comparative Legal Guides (ICLG) series published by Global Legal Group. This annual guide offers comparative analysis of franchise laws and regulations across jurisdictions worldwide, providing practical insights for businesses and legal practitioners operating in the global franchise sector. Each country chapter in the 12th edition follows a Q&A format covering key aspects of franchise law and operations, including: Relevant legislation and rules governing franchise transactions Business organization options for franchised operations Competition law considerations Protection of intellectual property and brands Liability issues and risk mitigation Governing law and dispute resolution Real estate matters Online trading regulations Termination requirements Joint employer risks and vicarious liability Currency controls and taxation Commercial agency considerations Good faith obligations and fair dealing requirements Ongoing relationship management Franchise renewal processes Franchise migration procedures Sustainability commitments Electronic signatures and document retention Current developments in the franchise sector The Thailand chapter, authored by Alan Adcock and Kasama Sriwatanakul, provides an in-depth overview of the legal landscape for franchising and franchising-related activities in Thailand. The complete Thailand chapter is available as a PDF below. The Thailand chapter—and the full Franchise 2026 guide—are also freely available on the ICLG website.
Read More