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

October 2, 2015

Vietnam: New Guidance on IP Enforcement Regime

Subscribe to Updates
Managing Intellectual Property

On June 26, 2015, the Ministry of Science and Technology (MOST) issued Circular No. 11/2015/TT-BKHCN providing guidance on the implementation of Government Decree No. 99/2013/ND-CP dated August 29, 2013 on administrative sanctions in industrial property. The new circular took effect on August 11, 2015. Because administrative measures play a very important role in the enforcement of IP rights in Vietnam, Circular 11 was eagerly awaited as it would provide a replacement for Circular No. 37/2011/TT-BKHCN dated December 27, 2011, a document originally designed to provide guidance on the now-expired Decree No. 97/2010/ND-CP dated September 21, 2010. Attempts to implement Decree 99 while referring to the old circular often led to legal barriers and conflicts that were difficult to reconcile.

Though it contains are several new provisions, Circular 11 maintains a troublesome provision: IP right holders should be aware that in the process of resolving domain name disputes by administrative measures in cases where the use of the domain name is considered an act of unfair competition, the owner of the trademark/trade name/geographical indication must provide evidence demonstrating that the infringer has continued to use a confusing trademark, trade name, or geographical indication in its domain name(s) despite being requested to terminate the use by the rightful owner. This condition is a de facto obligation to send an advance warning. Many commenters in the drafting process had recommended removing this obligation from the circular, but the competent agencies did not agree.

Circular 24 Clarifies Domain Name Revocation

Shortly after Circular 11 took effect, the Ministry of Information and Communications (MIC) issued Circular No. 24/2015/TT-TTTT dated August 18, 2015, on the management and use of Internet resources. Among the many general provisions of Circular 24, which takes effect on October 10, 2015, there are brief but important provisions on a subject of considerable interest: Guidance on the mechanism for resolving disputes over “.vn” domain names.

Article 12 of Circular 24, which sets out the circumstances in which domain names are to be revoked, reconfirms the viewpoints of the MIC on the procedures for resolving domain name disputes when it mentions in Article 12.1(a) that domain names will only be revoked pursuant to the execution of minutes of successful conciliation by the parties to the dispute, a legally effective decision of an arbitrator, or a legally effective judgment or decision of the court. Circular 24 also mentions the revocation of domain names by administrative measures, but stipulates that this revocation requires a decision on administrative sanctions from an inspectorate of information and communications [Article 12.1(c)]. It does not, however, provide for the revocation of domain names under a decision on administrative sanctions from the Inspectorate of MOST, the agency that most frequently handles and resolves similar types of disputes. This shows that Circular 24 does not resolve situations where, in the past, there has been a lack of coordination among agencies in resolving domain name disputes. Circular 24 only opens up other possibilities for domain names to be revoked when it stipulates that they may be revoked in other cases as prescribed by the government, which provides some flexibility in choosing enforcement bodies.

Other Documents Racing Against the Clock

There are at least two further documents related to the enforcement of IP rights which may be forthcoming—a joint circular relating to the coordination mechanism between the MIC and MOST in the enforcement of administrative decisions on domain names subject to IP infringement (this is expected to resolve the aforementioned coordination issue) and a circular on the coordination mechanism between MOST and the Ministry of Planning and Investment in the enforcement of administrative decisions on revocation or removal of enterprise names/trade names subject to IP infringement. At the moment, it appears that these circulars need to be issued before July 1, 2016; otherwise they will be unenforceable, because when the new Law on Promulgation of Legal Documents takes effect on July 1, 2016, joint circulars between ministries will no longer be defined as legal normative documents that are recognized in Vietnam’s legal system.

Faced with such a situation, if there is not effective cooperation and a drastic plan of action between the concerned ministries, the likelihood that joint circulars will be issued prior to the time mentioned above is very remote, which will lead to the odd situation in which many important regulations cannot practically be enforced despite everyone being aware of the risk in advance.

The agencies, particularly MOST, are currently very active in drafting the joint circulars to be able to resolve the difficulties related to the revocation of domain names and enterprise names, with the hope that such efforts will eventually bring about concrete results.

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