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​ 

July 24, 2026
As food innovation continues to accelerate, manufacturers are increasingly introducing ingredients derived from new sources, produced using novel technologies, or lacking a significant history of human consumption. While these innovations create new opportunities for the food industry, they also raise important questions regarding consumer safety. For this reason, many jurisdictions, including Thailand, the European Union, Australia and New Zealand, Canada, and Singapore, require a premarket safety assessment for novel food ingredients before they can be placed on the market. The objective of this assessment is to ensure that each ingredient is safe for its intended use and level of consumption, does not present toxicological, allergenic, microbiological, or nutritional concerns, and will not mislead consumers. Scientific authorities typically evaluate the ingredient’s identity, manufacturing process, composition, specifications, anticipated dietary exposure, toxicological information, nutritional impact, and history of use before determining whether it can be marketed. Against this background, the Thai Food and Drug Administration (FDA) recently took an important step toward improving regulatory transparency by publishing, for the first time, a consolidated public list of substances that have successfully completed the Thai FDA’s safety assessment process, including substances determined to be novel foods and those determined not to fall within the novel food category. The list identifies the approved substances, the corresponding manufacturers or importers, approval dates, and the approved conditions of use. Although the publication does not change the existing legal framework governing novel food approvals, it provides businesses with greater visibility into the Thai FDA’s regulatory precedents and the types of substances that have previously been accepted through the safety assessment process. The full announcement is available on the Thai FDA’s website. As the list is now publicly available, it also provides useful insight into the types of substances that have successfully completed the Thai FDA’s safety assessment process.
Read More
July 24, 2026
Indonesia has updated its fee framework for intellectual property (IP)-related government services, with implications for IP owners, licensees, lenders, digital platforms, and businesses operating in the country. Government Regulation No. 30 of 2026 on Types and Tariffs of Non-Tax State Revenue Applicable to the Ministry of Law (GR 30/2026) was promulgated on July 2, 2026, and will take effect on August 1, 2026. Key Takeaways GR 30/2026, which replaces the relevant IP service fees under Government Regulation No. 45 of 2024, reorganizes the fee schedule into separate categories for copyright, industrial designs, patents, layout designs of integrated circuits, trade secrets, trademarks, geographical indications, IP enforcement, and other categories. The most commercially relevant changes include a new copyright recordation tariff exemption for songs and music, higher fees for several trademark and geographical indication services, new IP enforcement service fees, and a new fee type for registration of fiduciary security over IP rights objects. In addition, this is the first major update for trademark fees in approximately 10 years. GR 30/2026 is significant not only as a fee update but also as a further indication of Indonesia’s increasing recognition of IP as a financeable commercial asset. By expressly assigning fees to the registration of fiduciary security over IP rights objects, the regulation places IP-backed collateral filings within the Ministry of Law’s administrative service framework. While GR 30/2026 does not create a new secured-transactions regime, this development is relevant for lenders, borrowers, and IP owners structuring financing arrangements secured by trademarks, patents, copyrights, industrial designs, or other registrable IP rights in Indonesia. Copyright: New Fee Exemption for Songs and Music Recordation For copyright, GR 30/2026 creates a fee-exempt category for recordation of works or related-rights products for songs or music, while maintaining a separate category for other works and related-rights products. It
Read More
July 21, 2026
Thailand’s Ministry of Digital Economy and Society (MDES) published a notification establishing an expedited court-ordered takedown mechanism for online content in cases of “urgent necessity.” The notification, which was issued on July 17, 2026, under the Computer Crime Act B.E. 2550 (2007), as amended, took effect the following day. It significantly expands the categories of content subject to rapid government-initiated removal. Content Categories Subject to Takedown The notification defines “urgent necessity” (section 20, paragraph 5, of the Computer Crime Act) as circumstances where any delay in suppressing computer data may impact national security, religion, the monarchy, good morals, social culture, or public order. In this regard, it establishes four broad categories of content: Computer Crime Act offenses. National security offenses. IP and other criminal offenses, where it is contrary to public order or good morals and a competent officer has requested its suppression. Content contrary to public order or good morals, a broad residual category encompassing 14 subcategories approved by the Computer Data Screening Committee. The fourth category is the most expansive. Its 14 subcategories include: Content defaming, mocking, satirizing, or devaluing the monarchy. Online gambling advertising or facilitation. Offering illegal firearms for sale. Offering baraku (hookah) products or e-cigarettes for sale. Offering cannabis inflorescences or processed cannabis products for sale. Advertising or soliciting prostitution. Content inciting violence, hatred, or social division. Unauthorized overseas employment advertising. Offering boiled kratom juice for sale. Online sale or advertising of alcoholic beverages. Content satirizing or degrading Buddhism. Money lending at interest rates exceeding legally prescribed limits. Advertising or disseminating information about surrogacy services. Forgery of documents, cards, or official documents. Enforcement Procedure In cases of urgent necessity, a competent official assigned by the MDES permanent secretary must file a petition with supporting evidence to the court with jurisdiction, requesting an order to
Read More
July 15, 2026
Ambush marketing refers to a strategy in which a business associates itself with an event, campaign, or brand without paying for official sponsorship rights. The tactic is most visible in sports, concerts, and festivals, where official sponsors have invested substantially for exclusivity. Ambush marketers may use suggestive wording, event-themed imagery, athlete endorsements, venue-adjacent promotions, or social media campaigns implying a commercial connection with the event. Common Forms of Ambush Marketing Ambush marketing typically takes one of the following forms: Direct ambushing: using event names, logos, or mascots suggesting authorization Coattail ambushing: sponsoring an athlete or broadcaster connected with the event Subtle ambushing: themed advertising, venue-adjacent campaigns, or similar visual cues The legal analysis in each case turns on whether the marketing crosses from permissible event-based advertising into infringement, passing off, deception, or wrongful exploitation of goodwill, and the risk assessment is necessarily fact-specific. Thailand has no dedicated ambush marketing statute, so legality depends on execution. A campaign that merely comments on a public event may be permissible, but one that uses protected marks, creates consumer confusion, misrepresents sponsorship status, or makes unsubstantiated claims may trigger liability under various Thai laws, as laid out below. Ambush Marketing and Thailand’s Trademark Act The Trademark Act B.E. 2534 (1991) is the primary tool for addressing campaigns that use registered trademarks, event names, logos, mascots, or confusingly similar signs. The law gives registered trademark owners the exclusive right to use their mark for registered goods, and infringement risk arises when a nonsponsor uses an event mark or a confusingly similar sign in advertising. Even referential or playful use may create liability if it causes public confusion as to sponsorship or commercial connection. The law also preserves passing-off claims for unregistered marks. This matters because event names, taglines, or mascots may not always be
Read More