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 22, 2016

Vietnam: New Guidance on Infringing Enterprise Names

Subscribe to Updates
Managing Intellectual Property

On April 5, 2016, the Ministry of Science and Technology (MOST) and the Ministry of Planning and Investment (MPI) issued Joint Circular 05/2016/TTLT-BKHCN-BKHDT providing details and guidance on the handling of cases where enterprise names infringe upon industrial property rights. The new joint circular, which came into effect on May 20, is the first official regulation ever issued on this subject in Vietnam, and is expected to prevent circumstances in which names of companies are identical or confusingly similar to protected intellectual property objects of unassociated IP holders, and aim to take advantage of the IP holders’ reputations.

Change and Removal of Infringing Elements

The joint circular clarifies that enterprises that use names containing elements which infringe other holders’ trademarks, geographical indications, or trade names, and which use those names on goods, means of business or service, signboards, or business transaction papers, will commit industrial property infringement. An infringer will be requested to terminate the use of the name, or conduct procedures to change its name or business lines. If the company does not voluntarily comply, the change can be forced. Further noncompliance can lead to the revocation of the company’s Business Registration Certificate.

Under the new provisions, whether an enterprise name infringes upon industrial property rights is determined by competent enforcement authorities or individuals empowered to impose administrative sanctions in accordance with the Law on Intellectual Property. This takes the form of a written conclusion on infringement which can be either: (1) the conclusion of an inspection by a competent enforcement authority or (2) a decision on administrative sanctions by a competent individual which requests the enterprise to change its name or remove infringing elements from its name.

When a written conclusion on infringement is issued in the form of a conclusion of an inspection, the IP holder and the infringer will have 30 days from the date of the conclusion to negotiate and settle their dispute. If no settlement can be reached through negotiation, the IP holder will be entitled to petition the Business Registration Office (BRO) to demand a change in the infringer’s name within two months. After that, if the infringer has not conducted the name-changing procedures, the BRO will be responsible to bring the case before competent enforcement authorities in the field of planning and investment and competent authorities for examination and inspection in accordance with IP laws.

Although this procedure contains some specific steps, it does not completely address how to resolve incidents that have passed the two-month time limit mentioned above. After being informed by the BRO, the competent authorities will examine and inspect the infringer, and are able to issue sanctions with remedies forcing the infringer to change its enterprise name or remove infringing elements from the name. These sanctions then open the case to further possibilities.

Revocation of Business Registration Certificate

Competent authorities are able to issue sanctions requiring a change in an enterprise’s name or the removal of infringing elements from a name with or without a notice from the BRO. Accordingly, infringers will have to change their names within 60 days from the effective date of the sanctions. If the infringers do not comply with the given remedies, the authorities will cooperate with the BRO in order to handle the cases.

The BRO will issue a notice to the infringers requesting them to report and explain the case, in accordance with the Enterprise Law. If neither report nor explanation is submitted on time, the competent authorities in the field of planning and investment will be responsible to handle the administrative violations of the infringers. Notably, if the infringer does not respond within six months, the BRO will revoke its Business Registration Certificate.

It should be noted, however, that the revocation of  Business Registration Certificate is only permitted under the Enterprise Law if a report is not submitted upon request. It is difficult for the BRO to deal with circumstances in which infringers send back their reports on time, and it is unclear under the law how such cases should be handled. Faced with such situations, the joint circular still raises concerns in relation to revocation of Business Registration Certificates on the basis of IP infringement alone.

In addition to the introduction of detailed procedures with specific timeframes, the joint circular sets out the responsibilities of and requires cooperation among competent authorities in the handling of disputes between enterprise names and IP rights. Although it leaves some uncertainty in the process of handling infringing names, Joint Circular 05 is a groundbreaking regulation for the time being.

Download Full Article
Related Professionals

Practices

Intellectual Property

Location

RELATED INSIGHTS​ 

August 20, 2026
As part of its membership in Lex Mundi, Tilleke & Gibbins has released the latest edition of its Guide to Doing Business in Thailand, providing an overview of the legal, regulatory, and commercial considerations for companies establishing or expanding operations in Thailand. The 2026 edition offers practical insight into the country’s business environment, investment framework, and operational requirements. The guide covers a wide range of topics relevant to foreign and domestic investors, including: Investment incentives and promotion schemes Financial facilities and banking regulations Exchange controls and money transfers Import and export regulations Business structures and incorporation options Requirements for establishing a business Operational and compliance considerations Business cessation and insolvency procedures Employment and labor laws Taxation Immigration and visa requirements Prepared by Tilleke & Gibbins lawyers across multiple practice areas, the publication outlines key aspects of doing business in Thailand, including foreign investment restrictions, regulatory compliance obligations, corporate structures, employment requirements, and recent legal and economic developments affecting investors. The publication forms part of Lex Mundi’s Country Guides series, a global collection of jurisdiction-specific reference materials prepared by member firms around the world. Together, these guides help companies evaluate opportunities, compare regulatory environments, and plan international business activities across multiple markets. The full Guide to Doing Business in Thailand 2026 is available through the button below.
Read More
August 13, 2026
Modern agricultural machinery is no longer purely mechanical but instead technology dependent. Modern tractors, harvesters, and other farm equipment increasingly incorporate embedded software, electronic control units, sensors, and digital diagnostic systems. While such technologies enhance efficiency, productivity, and precision farming, they also affect the manner of equipment repair and maintenance. As a result, farmers and independent repair providers may have little practical choice but to rely on authorized dealers, even for routine maintenance and repairs. Section 36 of Thailand’s Patent Act reflects the principle that the authorized sale of a patented invention usually exhausts the exclusive right of the patent owner over the specific product. This means that upon legal sale of the patented product, it can typically be used or resold without further authorization from the patent holder. This principle is relatively straightforward when applied to traditional mechanical equipment. Ownership of a machine ordinarily carries with it the practical ability to diagnose faults, replace worn parts, and restore the equipment to working order. Modern agricultural machinery, however, increasingly depends on embedded software, proprietary diagnostic systems, firmware updates, and other digital resources that may remain under the control of the manufacturer or patent holder. This tension lies within the “right to repair” debate. In the United States, on July 8, 2026, the Federal Trade Commission and five states announced a settlement with Deere & Company resolving allegations that Deere had unlawfully restricted farmers’ and independent repair providers’ ability to repair their equipment. Under the terms of the settlement, for the next ten years, Deere must provide repair resources, including software capabilities, on terms equivalent to those provided to authorized dealers. The Deere settlement highlights that the nature of ownership is changing, but legal concepts have not kept pace. Traditional patent-law concepts, including patent exhaustion, were developed with physical products
Read More
August 10, 2026
Thailand has finalized its social media KYC (“know your customer”) rules under Notification of the Electronic Transactions Commission on Measures to Prevent Technological Crimes for Social Media Service Providers (No. 2), which was published in the Government Gazette on May 5, 2026, and will take effect on November 1, 2026. While an early draft of the notification proposed requiring social media platforms to arrange identification of every user account, the final notification is significantly more targeted, focusing on paid online advertising and advertiser identity verification. Though the regulatory initiative primarily aims to combat online fraud and technology-related crimes, it also has important consequences for intellectual property enforcement, because the verified platform records that will be generated under the new requirements can help IP rights holders to identify anonymous online infringers. Key Regulatory Mandates The notification requires social media service providers to verify the identity of advertisers before their paid advertisements are published and disseminated in Thailand through social media, regardless of whether the advertising fees come from the advertisers or third parties. Verification of an advertiser is valid for one year, after which verification would have to be performed again before the platform could publish additional paid advertisements from the advertiser. Permitted verification methods are specified under the notification. A platform may verify an advertiser by checking identity evidence and confirming the connection between the advertiser and that identity evidence, with the notification giving facial comparison against certain government-issued identity documents as an example. Alternatively, platforms may verify advertisers through a digital identity verification and authentication system with an identity-proofing assurance level not lower than the level prescribed by Thailand’s Electronic Transactions Commission. The notification further requires platforms to retain only the advertiser’s information necessary to identify the advertiser, beginning from the start of the advertising activity and for
Read More
August 6, 2026
Introduction: A Trademark Paradox in Sustainable Packaging Walk into any Thai supermarket, and the label-free water bottle is no longer a novelty. Thailand’s packaging market, valued at approximately USD 15.68 billion in 2025, is shifting toward minimalist, plastic-light designs as ESG pressures reshape how brands present their products. The country generated roughly 5.68 million tons of plastic waste in 2021, with a recycling rate of only 19 percent, and regulators are now considering rules that would allow label-free bottled water relying on embossing, laser printing, or QR codes instead of wrap-around labels. As packaging itself becomes the brand identifier, a paradox emerges: designs built to say the least often struggle hardest for protection under Thai intellectual property law. The Trademark Barrier: When Shape Is Not Enough Section 7, paragraph 2(10) of the Thai Trademark Act deems a shape distinctive only if it is not the natural form of the goods, is not necessary to achieve a technical result, and does not add value to the goods. The Department of Intellectual Property’s 2022 examination guidelines apply this test conservatively, as the following examples illustrate. A plain water bottle relying on subtle contours to signal its brand is typically read as just another bottle, not a source identifier. Acquired distinctiveness offers a theoretical escape route, but it demands extensive evidence of sales, advertising, and consumer recognition—an especially heavy burden for new entrants whose minimalist packaging has not yet achieved market prominence. The result is a structural bias against precisely the design innovation that sustainability goals are meant to encourage. Design Patents: A Partial, Imperfect Substitute Design patent protection, covering a product’s shape, configuration, or ornamentation, appears to offer an alternative route. In practice, it is constrained by the same forces driving the minimalist trend. Because many brands converge on similar solutions—clear
Read More