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​ 

June 16, 2026
Since the implementation of the Trademark Law 2019 on April 1, 2023, Myanmar has operated under a modern first-to-file trademark system that brings its registration framework closer to international practice. As the new regime continues to develop in practice, applicants are increasingly required to navigate formal examination requirements, substantive objections, and procedural deadlines with greater precision. This article provides a high-level review of the trademark examination process in Myanmar, focusing on the principal stages from initial review to approval, the types of objections commonly raised by the Intellectual Property Department (IPD), and the key considerations for responding effectively. A clear understanding of these issues is essential for applicants seeking to secure registration efficiently and to mitigate avoidable delays or refusals. Examination Process: Key Stages Trademark applications filed with the IPD undergo two stages of review. Formality Examination The IPD first verifies compliance with procedural requirements, including: Correct Nice Classification Clear mark representation Accurate applicant details Clearly defined goods or services Representative details, if the application is filed by a representative Other formality requirements cover translation and transliteration of any non-English or non-Myanmar elements in the mark, color claim details, applicable disclaimers, and payment of official fees. Deficiencies result in an office action requiring correction within 30 days, which may be extended upon request. Registrability Examination The IPD also assesses registrability. A mark may be refused if it: Lacks distinctiveness Is descriptive or generic Misleads the public or violates public order/morality Contains prohibited state symbols Only compliant applications proceed to publication. Responding to Office Actions Applicants must respond within 30 days of notification from the IPD. Depending on the nature of the objection, strategies may include submitting legal arguments for distinctiveness, providing evidence of acquired distinctiveness, filing appropriate disclaimers, clarifying descriptions such as color claims, or amending the listed goods
Read More
June 15, 2026
The surge in AI development has led to a desperate demand for large, high-quality training data. However, real-world data can be expensive to collect, difficult to access, and often subject to strict privacy and regulatory constraints. Synthetic data, which consists of artificially generated records that replicate the statistical properties of real-world data without reproducing specific individuals’ information, provides an appealing solution by generating artificial datasets at scale without relying on identifiable personal information. It combines speed, cost efficiency, and regulatory compliance, making it a sensible alternative for organizations seeking to reduce risks while maintaining data utility. When properly anonymized, synthetic datasets may fall outside the scope of laws such as the EU’s General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR) or Thailand’s Personal Data Protection Act (PDPA), reducing compliance burdens while still supporting high-quality model training. However, relying on synthetic data without rigorous legal due diligence could be a strategic mistake. It replaces one set of known risks (scraping, direct privacy liability) with a new set of complex liabilities. The narrative that synthetic data is a “silver bullet” for privacy and IP compliance is dangerous and could be misleading. While synthetic data addresses data scarcity, it also introduces new legal uncertainties. Legal counsel should anticipate downstream risks arising from compromised data sources. Models trained on unlawfully obtained data may need to be decommissioned, even if their outputs appear lawful. What is synthetic data? Synthetic data refers to artificially generated information created using AI techniques such as deep learning and generative models. Instead of copying real records, it reproduces the statistical patterns and relationships found in the original dataset. Synthetic data generally falls into three categories: Fully synthetic data – Entirely new data points generated from learned patterns. The model studies the structure of the original data and produces records that resemble real-world
Read More
June 10, 2026
In March 2026, the Intellectual Property Office of Vietnam (IP Office) issued a decision refusing a trademark application after considering an opposition based primarily on copyright grounds. The outcome is noteworthy because the foreign brand owner had neither trademark registrations nor applications in Vietnam at the time the opposition was filed, and the IP Office has historically applied a stringent approach to oppositions relying on copyright. The Opposition Maurten is a well-known Swedish sports nutrition brand recognized globally for its innovative hydrogel technology, which is designed to help endurance athletes fuel more effectively without gastrointestinal discomfort. The brand’s distinctive logo is characterized by clean lines and a bold black-and-white color scheme, and has long been associated with the company’s performance products. The brand’s logo is displayed above. An identical mark was filed for registration by a Vietnamese trademark squatter. In 2023, a Vietnamese individual filed an application for registration of an identical mark (Application No. 4-2023-38668), a practice commonly observed in Vietnam as trademark squatting. The brand owner engaged Tilleke & Gibbins to assist with strategy and filing an opposition to the mark. At the time, Maurten had no trademark rights or meaningful use in Vietnam, and global marketing data showed only modest figures without any local presence. Thus, to convince the IP Office to refuse the squatter’s application, instead of relying on trademark rights or use evidence, the opposition strategy centered on the copyright protection of the logo itself, as copyright arises automatically in Vietnam upon creation of the work and does not require registration. (It is worth noting, however, that the IP Office has traditionally been cautious in accepting copyright as a basis for refusing trademark applications.) On September 24, 2024, an opposition was filed on three main grounds: confusing similarity, copyright infringement of the artistic work,
Read More
June 10, 2026
For multinational franchisors operating in Thailand, a key risk after franchise termination is that former outlets may continue operating in ways that could easily mislead consumers into believing they remain within the authorized network. To justify such operations, former franchisees often argue that the termination was invalid or ineffective. As a result, these cases are often treated as contractual disputes, making it difficult for franchisors to obtain injunctive relief before a final judgment confirms that the termination was lawful. Franchisors face significant commercial and reputational harm during lengthy proceedings, including consumer confusion, disruption to franchise restructuring, and damage to brand reputation and customer trust. In an encouraging development, the Thai court in a 2025 case responded to the problem of unauthorized post-termination franchise operations by granting interim relief, recognizing broader brand and consumer harm, and awarding substantial damages, highlighting a successful litigation strategy of framing the dispute not merely as a contractual termination issue but as trademark infringement causing ongoing commercial injury. The Subway Case From December 2024 to mid-2025, an unauthorized “Subway®” franchise operation in Thailand attracted substantial public and media attention. Reports and online discussions about unauthorized Subway® stores circulated widely after complaints arose about food quality and customer experience at certain outlets that were allegedly operating after their franchise rights had expired. Because these stores continued to use Subway® trademarks, trade dress, and overall commercial appearance, many consumers were unable to distinguish them from authorized operations, resulting in reputational risks and customer confusion that affected the franchisor’s brand and franchise system in Thailand. Subway treated this matter with the utmost seriousness and moved promptly to protect its brand, franchise system, and customers. It filed a civil action with the IP&IT Court seeking a permanent injunction and damages. During the proceedings, the court granted a preliminary injunction
Read More