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 4, 2026
Intellectual property (IP) protection sometimes hinges on fame and recognition. However, this alone will not always be sufficient to overcome an IP dispute when it involves contractual obligations or registered rights. Below are five cases from around the world that tackle some of the basic issues in IP registration, ownership, commercialization, and enforcement. 1. USA: Taylor Swift Trademark Application Refused Taylor Swift recently filed a trademark application to register “The Life of a Showgirl,” which is the title of her 12th studio album. When examining a trademark application, the examiner considers various factors before deciding whether it should be registered. One of these factors is whether there is a likelihood of confusion (i.e., would a regular consumer mistake the origin of the trademark). In Taylor Swift’s case, the US Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO) decided that that there would be a risk of confusion. This decision was based on the existing registered trademark, “Confessions of a Showgirl,” owned by Maren Wade, which was registered in 2015. The USPTO refused Taylor Swift’s application based on the shared key distinctive element “of a showgirl,” the lack of sufficient distinguishing terms, the marks being used in overlapping markets (entertainment and performances), and because consumers may assume a common commercial source. Maren Wade then filed a lawsuit in California against Taylor Swift and her affiliated companies, arguing that Taylor Swfit’s branding is confusingly similar in structure, wording, and overall commercial impression to her registered mark. She is also drawing on the USPTO’s refusal of Taylor Swift’s application to support her argument of a likelihood of confusion. A judgment has not yet been reached in this case, but it serves as an important reminder of the importance of satisfying the essential elements required for IP registration. 2. Australia: Katy Perry v. Katie Perry In
Read More
July 27, 2026
Vietnam’s new E-Commerce Law, which took effect on 1 July 2026 along with its implementing Decree No. 248/2026/ND-CP (Decree 248), marks a significant development in the country’s approach to online intellectual property (IP) enforcement, reflecting a clear shift from a reactive model of intermediary liability to one that expects platforms to play a more active role in preventing infringement. From notice-and-takedown to platform responsibility The most significant change introduced by the E-Commerce Law is the transformation of the legal role of e-commerce platforms. The existing safe harbor provisions under the IP Law and the copyright notice-and-takedown regime established by Decree 17/2023/ND-CP (Decree 17) largely required intermediaries to act only after receiving notice of infringement. Once infringing content had been removed, the platform’s legal obligation was generally considered fulfilled. The new legislation adopts a fundamentally different approach. Article 17 of the E-Commerce Law requires intermediary platforms to screen information relating to goods and services before publication in order to prevent listings involving counterfeit or IP-infringing goods, and goods of unknown origin. Rather than relying exclusively on complaints from rights holders, platforms are now expected to implement preventive measures before infringing listings become publicly available. Decree 248 further requires platforms to update keyword filters based on recommendations issued by competent authorities. These filtering mechanisms are intended to prevent prohibited listings from appearing on the platform and represent a further move away from a purely complaint-driven enforcement model. The legislation also introduces Vietnam’s first statutory stay-down obligation. Under the E-Commerce Law and Decree 248, major digital platforms must maintain automated systems capable of reviewing, warning against, and removing unlawful listings while also implementing measures to prevent repeat violations, defined under Decree 248 as conduct that has previously been identified and handled by the platform, but continues to recur. This obligation addresses one
Read More
July 27, 2026
Tilleke & Gibbins’ intellectual property specialists have authored the Thailand chapter of Trade Secrets 2026 from Chambers and Partners. This global guide examines the legal frameworks governing trade secret protection, enforcement, and litigation across jurisdictions worldwide. The Thailand chapter provides a comprehensive overview of the country’s legal regime for protecting confidential business information, covering the legal framework, trade secret misappropriation, litigation procedures, remedies, and dispute resolution. Some topics covered include: Protectable trade secrets Reasonable measures to maintain secrecy Employee confidentiality Trade secret licensing Civil and criminal remedies Litigation procedures and injunctions Damages and other remedies Mediation and arbitration The guide also examines practical issues relating to safeguarding trade secrets, defending against allegations of misappropriation, and managing trade secret disputes in Thailand. Chambers and Partners’ Global Practice Guides provide in-house counsel with authoritative commentary on practical legal issues affecting business, enabling readers to compare legislation and procedures across multiple jurisdictions. The Thailand chapter of Trade Secrets 2026 is available as a PDF through the button below. The full guide can be accessed for free on the Chambers and Partners website.
Read More
July 27, 2026
In March 2025, Thailand’s Central Intellectual Property and International Trade Court (IP&IT Court) issued a landmark judgment in favor of Luckin Coffee, China’s leading retail coffee chain. The judgment marked a significant turnaround following earlier trademark litigation involving Luckin Coffee from 2021 to 2023 that had generated widespread public attention and raised questions about the protection available to legitimate foreign brand owners in Thailand. In a significant subsequent development, Thailand’s Court of Appeal for Specialized Cases has now affirmed the IP&IT Court’s judgment in its entirety. The appellate decision brings clarity to one of Thailand’s most closely watched trademark disputes. Significantly, this is the first case in Thailand to formally recognize the trademark squatting principle. The Court of Appeal confirmed that Luckin Coffee has a better right to the disputed mark and ordered cancellation of the defendants’ trademark registration—a key application of the “better right” doctrine. The court also upheld the substantial damages awarded at first instance, providing important guidance on assessing harm from systematic trademark squatting. Award-Winning Judgment Affirmed in Its Entirety The significance of the first-instance judgment extended beyond the outcome for Luckin Coffee. The IP&IT Court judgment was subsequently recognized in the IP&IT Court’s Distinguished Judgment Awards in 2025, reflecting the complexity, novelty, and legal significance of the issues considered in the case. The defendants nevertheless appealed the judgment, challenging several key aspects of the IP&IT Court’s decision. Luckin Coffee continued to entrust Tilleke & Gibbins as their sole attorney to pursue the case at the appellate level. After considering the defendants’ appeal and Luckin Coffee’s submissions in response, the Court of Appeal affirmed the first-instance judgment in its entirety. The judgment was announced on July 8, 2026. Better Right to the Marks The Court of Appeal confirmed Luckin Coffee’s superior rights. The orders include cancellation
Read More