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​ 

July 13, 2026
When Decree No. 186/2026/ND-CP (Decree 186) takes effect on July 15, 2026, it will introduce the most significant reform of Vietnam’s administrative IP enforcement framework since Decree 99/2013/ND-CP was issued in 2013. These changes are expected to make administrative enforcement faster, more accessible, and better suited to the realities of modern IP disputes. Below are the principal reforms and their practical implications for rights holders and enforcement practitioners. The End of Notarization and Consular Legalization Among the most welcome procedural changes is the abolition of the notarization and consular legalization requirement for powers of attorney (POA) submitted in administrative enforcement proceedings. Under the previous regime, foreign rights holders were generally required to execute a POA, then have it notarized and consular legalized (if seeking customs recordal). In practice, this process frequently delayed enforcement by four to eight weeks, often long enough for infringing goods to disappear before authorities could intervene. Decree 186 removes this bottleneck, now requiring only an original or certified copy of the POA. If the document is in a foreign language, a Vietnamese translation is sufficient, provided it is certified by a competent authority or confirmed by the authorized Vietnamese IP representative. Consular legalization and notarization are no longer required. For rights holders, the practical impact is substantial. Administrative enforcement files that previously took weeks to prepare can now be completed in a matter of days, allowing much faster responses in time-sensitive matters such as warehouse raids, border interventions, and trade-fair enforcement. The decree also introduces a useful administrative simplification. Where an original POA has already been submitted to the same enforcement authority and remains valid, applicants may rely on a copy of that earlier submission by identifying the previous case file. This eliminates unnecessary duplication for rights holders pursuing multiple enforcement actions before the same
Read More
July 9, 2026
Recycling, upcycling, and refill-packaging models are now widely promoted as ways to reduce waste, lower carbon emissions, and respond to consumer demand for sustainable products. However, complications arise when these environmentally driven trends intersect with intellectual property law—particularly where reused or altered packaging continues to display third parties’ registered trademarks. Adding to this complexity, Thailand’s draft Sustainable Packaging Management Act aims to introduce new environmental compliance obligations that businesses must navigate alongside existing trademark concerns. Recycling and upcycling packaging may infringe trademark rights, especially in cases not protected by the first-sale doctrine—the principle that a trademark owner’s rights over a particular mark-bearing product end once the owner first sells it. Furthermore, even refill packaging carries legal risk due to specific statutory prohibitions under Thai law. Compounding these challenges, the draft Sustainable Packaging Management Act will impose extended producer responsibility (EPR) obligations on manufacturers and brand owners, requiring them to manage packaging throughout its lifecycle. These overlapping legal frameworks could deter manufacturers from pursuing ESG-aligned business models unless businesses understand how to navigate both trademark and environmental requirements. Under Thai law, this issue remains uncertain because the Trademark Act does not expressly codify the first sale doctrine, also known as the exhaustion of trademark rights. Generally, this doctrine provides that once a trademark owner has lawfully sold goods bearing its trademark, the owner’s right to control further resale of those particular goods is exhausted. The rationale is that the owner has already received commercial benefit from the first authorized sale; therefore, the purchaser should be free to resell or otherwise dispose of the goods. Although the doctrine is not expressly codified in the Trademark Act, Thai courts have recognized it in relation to genuine goods and parallel imports, as seen in a Supreme Court Judgment No. 2817/2543 in which the
Read More
July 6, 2026
Indonesia’s regulation on reporting online intellectual property (IP) infringement provides comprehensive procedural guidance for IP rights holders and their licensees in reporting online infringement complaints. Issued in December 2025 by the Ministry of Law as Regulation No. 47 of 2025 regarding Handling of Intellectual Property Infringement Reports in Electronic Systems, this regulation covers all types of IP rights. It also specifies documentation when reporting infringement, and lays out the procedures for examination, verification, and enforcement actions. Submission of Complaints Complainants may submit reports through the online system of the Directorate General of Intellectual Property (DGIP) or in person at the DGIP office. Complaints may also be filed through an authorized proxy. Under the regulation, complainants are required to provide the following information and documents: Personal details of the complainant; Brief description of the protected work or subject matter (i.e., type of IP and name or address of the infringing website, portal, account, or application, or a link to the location of the infringing content); Complete description of the alleged infringement; Certificate of registration or recordal of the relevant IP; Recordal of IP license agreement, if any; and Other supporting evidence. Verification and Examination Process Upon receiving a complaint, the responsible formality officer may request clarification or additional supporting documents. In the latter case, the complainant must then submit the necessary administrative documents within 14 days of the notification date. Once the documentation is deemed complete and sufficient, the case will be formally registered. Subsequently, the DGIP will establish a verification team to handle online IP violations, which will include the Civil Servant Investigator (PPNS), the Ministry of Communication and Digital Affairs, experts with relevant expertise in IP, and representatives from related associations such as AVISI (Indonesian Video Streaming Association). After examining the report, the team will prepare the Minutes
Read More
June 30, 2026
Customs recordation is an enforcement mechanism in Myanmar that enables intellectual property (IP) rights holders to seek prevention of the cross-border movement of infringing goods. The enactment of Myanmar’s IP laws in 2019 has enabled customs recordation for registered marks and copyrights under the Trademark Law 2019 and the Copyright Law 2019. By contrast, the Patent Law 2019 and the Industrial Design Law 2019 do not provide a practical framework for customs recordation, and accordingly such rights are not subject to the customs recordation regime. Under the Trademark Law 2019, rights holders may apply for customs recordation and may also ask the Customs Department to suspend the release of goods suspected of bearing counterfeit marks. Likewise, the Copyright Law 2019 allows for customs intervention in relation to pirated works. These provisions reflect Myanmar’s gradual alignment with international standards on border measures, although the implementation framework remains at a relatively early stage of development. Customs Recordation Pursuant to the Trademark Law 2019 and the Copyright Law 2019, the relevant authorities have issued customs rules concerning the protection of registered marks and copyrights. In practice, the process generally begins with the submission of an application to the Customs Department together with supporting documentation. This typically includes proof of registration in Myanmar; details of the rights holder, applicant, and any authorized representative; and a comprehensive description of the genuine goods. Product identification materials—such as photographs, packaging samples, and distinguishing features—are particularly important in helping customs officers identify suspected infringing goods. A recordation remains valid for two years from the date of approval. It may be renewed for additional two-year terms, provided that the renewal application is filed within the thirty days prior to expiry for marks and up to thirty days in advance of the expiry date for copyrights, in accordance with
Read More