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

September 4, 2018

Vietnam: New Law on Competition Impacts IP

Subscribe to Updates
Managing Intellectual Property

On June 12, 2018, Vietnam passed a new Law on Competition that will take effect on July 1, 2019, replacing the Law on Competition of 2004. The new law brings about several changes affecting intellectual property. Notably, it eliminates many of the discrepancies between the current 2004 Competition Law and the Intellectual Property Law in dealing with IP-related unfair competition.

Acts of Unfair Competition

A weakness of the 2004 Competition Law and its subordinate regulations (such as Decree No. 71/2014/ND-CP) is that they overlap with provisions on competition found in other laws. For example, both the 2004 Competition Law and the IP Law have provisions concerning acts of cybersquatting, the use of misleading trade indications, and the unauthorized use of a trademark by an agent, and both provide that the infringement of trade secrets is an act of unfair competition. This has led to confusion for law enforcement agencies and rights holders as to which enforcement mechanisms should be employed in taking action against unfair competition relating to IP.

The new Competition Law no longer sets out acts of unfair competition that are already covered by the IP Law. Instead, the new law expressly states that when there are discrepancies between the Competition Law and the related unfair competition provisions of another law, the provisions of the other law will prevail. This will be a big step toward clarifying who will enforce the laws on unfair competition in practice. When the new Competition Law takes force, rights holders can rely solely on the IP Law.

Secrets in Business

The new Competition Law seems to introduce a new statutory term, “secrets in business” (bí mật trong kinh doanh). The new law considers infringement of these “secrets in business” to amount to unfair competition, but it does not define this term. The term is similar to the statutory term “trade secret” (bí mật kinh doanh) defined in the IP Law. However, given the principle that the new law does not repeat acts of unfair competition provided in other laws, it is uncertain whether the term “secrets in business” has an equivalent meaning to “trade secret” in the IP Law, or is something entirely new. As a matter of practice, the government will roll out decrees to guide the implementation of new laws. In these decrees, the government should clarify the meaning of this term.

Court Jurisdiction

The prevailing competition laws defer to the Civil Code for resolving non-contractual damages related to unfair practices. Particularly, if unfair practices cause damage to the lawful rights and interests of others, the offenders are required to compensate for such loss in accordance with the civil laws. Under the Civil Procedure Code, disputes over compensation for non-contractual damage fall under the civil courts’ jurisdiction. To resolve these disputes, the court must assess the unfair competition acts as one of the bases for determining the damages.

The new Competition Law no longer expressly refers to the civil laws as the legal tools to deal with unfair competition, triggering concern about whether the civil court still has jurisdiction to rule on unfair competition. However, the new law does not expressly obviate the court’s jurisdiction over acts of unfair competition that cause harm to the legitimate rights and interests of competitors. In addition, the Law on Promulgation of Legal Documents prevents laws from repeating regulations that are mentioned in other laws. The civil laws already expressly allow companies to initiate suits to generally protect their rights and interests. Thus, the new Competition Law should be interpreted in a way not to preclude the court’s power to deal with acts of unfair competition.

Other Changes

The new law establishes a new state agency, the National Competition Commission, to be in charge of dealing with antitrust and unfair competition practices set out in the law. For unfair competition acts covered in other laws, the respective authorities empowered by such laws would have power. As such, to curb unfair competition under laws relating to IP, companies can rely on administrative enforcement bodies, civil courts, or arbitration as set forth in the IP Law.

The new law also shortens the timeframe for administrative bodies, namely the National Competition Commission, to deal with unfair competition. Under the new law, the maximum time is just 60 days, with an option to extend another 45 days. This would only apply to unfair competition acts not falling under the IP Law. On the whole, the new Competition Law marks progress in eradicating discrepancies between laws on competition and IP that have caused uncertainty for years. However, certain issues still need clarification, such as compulsory licensing and “secrets in business,” for the law to be easily implemented in practice.

Download Full Article
Related Professionals

Practices

Antitrust and Competition

Intellectual Property

Location

RELATED INSIGHTS​ 

September 14, 2026
Myanmar’s first-to-file trademark registration regime under the Trademark Law 2019—which became fully operational in April 2023—provides mark owners with enhanced legal protection compared with the country’s former system. Correspondingly, the current system imposes more rigorous statutory requirements for obtaining, maintaining, and enforcing rights in marks. In this first-to-file trademark registration system, however, evidence of use remains particularly significant, as it may establish acquired distinctiveness, support a claim that a mark is well-known, and strengthen the owner’s position in both registration and enforcement proceedings. Accordingly, it can be said that this framework is underpinned by three key concepts: distinctiveness, well-known status, and, importantly, use of the trademark. Trademark Distinctiveness Under the Trademark Law, signs that lack distinctiveness are generally ineligible for mark protection. These signs include generic terms, basic shapes, unstylized single letters or numerals, and signs that merely describe the kind, quality, quantity, intended purpose, value, geographical origin, production time, or other characteristics of the relevant goods or services. However, a mark that would otherwise be refused on distinctiveness or descriptiveness grounds may be registrable if it has acquired distinctiveness through its use prior to the filing date. To show this, the applicant must demonstrate that the mark became distinctive to relevant consumers through continuous, exclusive, and good-faith use in trade within Myanmar. The burden of proving acquired distinctiveness rests with the mark owner. Accordingly, sufficient evidence demonstrating both use of the mark and the level of consumer recognition attained should be prepared in advance. Well-Known Mark Criteria Myanmar’s Trademark Rules, which govern the substantive examination of mark registration applications, establish criteria for determining well-known marks, aligned with international standards. Where an applicant claims well-known status—whether to overcome a refusal on relative grounds or to oppose a third party’s registration—the registrar will assess the claim based on the following
Read More
September 14, 2026
On August 23, 2026, Vietnam’s National Assembly passed Law No. 11/2026/QH16, amending the country’s Customs Law with effect from March 1, 2027. The amendments represent a substantial reform of Vietnam’s customs-based intellectual property enforcement regime. The reforms come amid considerable external pressure. In its 2026 Special 301 review, the US Trade Representative (USTR) designated Vietnam a “priority foreign country,” citing widespread counterfeiting, weak border enforcement, limited ex officio customs powers, and the absence of controls over goods in transit. Vietnam’s legislative response signals a commitment to bringing its border enforcement practices into line with international expectations. For IP rights holders operating in or through Vietnam, the amended law introduces several tools that substantially strengthen enforcement options at the border. Closing the Transit Gap One of the most consequential amendments is the extension of IP-related customs enforcement to goods in transit. Previously, Vietnam’s customs regime applied IP controls only to goods being imported or exported, a gap the USTR had specifically identified as enabling infringing goods to pass through Vietnamese ports with impunity. Vietnam’s geographic position as a logistics hub for Southeast Asia means that substantial volumes of goods transit its ports and free-trade zones. Extending enforcement to cover these shipments brings Vietnam closer to the standard set by the EU’s customs enforcement regulation and addresses a longstanding concern of multinational brand owners whose goods are frequently counterfeited in the region. Strengthened Suspension and Ex Officio Powers The amended law introduces a dual-track suspension mechanism (Article 73(2)). Customs authorities will suspend clearance upon request by an IP rights holder (or authorized representative) who provides evidence of IP ownership, evidence of infringement, and a financial guarantee. Customs can now proactively suspend clearance on an ex officio basis if, during inspection and monitoring, they discover “clear grounds” to suspect that imported, exported,
Read More
September 7, 2026
Indonesia’s Constitutional Court (Mahkamah Konstitusi) has reinstated a key provision limiting pharmaceutical patent protection, signaling a renewed commitment to balancing patent rights with public access to medicines. In its ruling to Case No. 255/PUU-XXIII/2025, the court partially granted a petition for judicial review of Law No. 65 of 2024, which had amended the country’s Patent Law, and ordered the restoration of a provision that had excluded certain pharmaceutical inventions from patentability. The decision took effect immediately upon its pronouncement at the court’s plenary session on August 28, 2026. Background The petition challenged the removal of article 4(f) from Law No. 13 of 2016 concerning Patents (Patent Law), as amended by Law No. 65 of 2024. Article 4(f) had excluded from patentability certain inventions relating to new uses of known substances. The petitioners argued that removing this provision would open the door to patent protection for second medical use inventions and facilitate patent evergreening—practices that can extend exclusivity periods, delay generic market entry, and reduce public access to affordable medicines. The petitioners included several patient advocacy and public-interest organizations: the Indonesian Dialysis Patients Community Association, the Indonesian Association of Drug Abuse Victims (PKNI), the Indonesian Pulmonary Hypertension Foundation (YHPI), the Rekat Peduli Indonesia Foundation, and the Indonesian Positive Women’s Association (IPPI), along with the Indonesia for Global Justice Association and four individual petitioners. The petitioners also challenged the constitutionality of the phrase “interested party” in article 70(1) of the Patent Law, arguing that it should be construed expressly to clarify who has standing to appeal a decision to grant a patent before the Board of Patent Appeal, and to allow a broader range of parties—such as patent holders, licensees, consumer organizations, prosecutors, aggrieved third parties, and others who may suffer direct or indirect harm from the grant of a patent—to
Read More
September 2, 2026
Thailand and China have a longstanding and significant trade relationship, which increasingly extends to e-commerce and digitally enabled supply chains. While these channels create new opportunities for businesses to reach consumers across borders, their growth also brings greater exposure to intellectual property (IP) infringement across jurisdictions and online platforms. Effective cooperation between the two countries’ enforcement authorities has therefore become increasingly important. To strengthen cooperation in this area, Thailand and China signed a memorandum of understanding (MOU) on IP enforcement in Beijing on July 20, 2026, during the Thai prime minister’s official visit to China. Officially titled “Memorandum of Understanding Between the State Administration for Market Regulation of the People’s Republic of China and the Ministry of Commerce of the Kingdom of Thailand on Cooperation in the Field of Intellectual Property Enforcement,” the MOU forms part of a broader bilateral agenda covering industrial and supply chains, participation by micro, small, and medium-sized enterprises (MSMEs), cooperation associated with the ASEAN–China Free Trade Area 3.0, and progress on the registration of Thai geographical indications in China. The MOU establishes a bilateral framework for cooperation and coordination in five broad areas: Strengthening dialogue in IP enforcement; Enhancing information sharing; Facilitating the enforcement of IP rights in cases arising in the parties’ domestic markets and on online platforms, in accordance with their respective domestic laws; Promoting cooperation in IP enforcement training and human resource development; and Undertaking other cooperation activities agreed upon by both sides. The Department of Intellectual Property (DIP) will serve as the principal coordinating agency for Thailand, while the Bureau of Law Enforcement and Inspection in China’s State Administration for Market Regulation (SAMR) will serve in that role for China. The framework is particularly relevant to the growth of e-commerce, as it covers infringement in the domestic markets and on
Read More