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

April 4, 2017

Vietnam Steps Up Fight Against Counterfeit Goods

Subscribe to Updates
Managing Intellectual Property

Vietnamese authorities have stepped up their efforts to enforce IP rights in recent years, particularly in 2016, and especially in the area of combating counterfeit goods.

According to the government’s official statistics, all agencies are increasing their activities in IP protection. The Ministry of Science and Technology (MOST) Inspectorate, which typically handles the most complex cases in anti-counterfeiting and IP infringement, handled only about 70 cases in 2012, but last year handled nearly 300. Four years ago, the police only handled about 65 cases, but last year handled about 225. The Market Surveillance Department (MSD) under the Ministry of Industry and Trade (MOIT), which is still the core enforcement agency in anti-counterfeiting, tackled 2,282 cases of anti-counterfeiting and IP infringements in 2015. This number leapt to 4,874 cases in 2016. Customs also appears to have visibly strengthened their inspections and border control against counterfeits.

The sanctioning decisions are also becoming tougher. In addition to a move toward higher fines, such as several cases in which the maximum level of nearly USD 24,000 of fines was imposed, 2016 saw the authorities impose harsher sanctions, including a trend toward suspending the business licenses of infringers for up to three months. This sanction was issued at least 25 times in 2016. Notably, there seems to be a trend away from “slap on the wrist” types of fines that were common several years ago, with most fines now being two to three times higher, in the range of USD 500 to USD 1,000.

In recent years, rights holders have voiced concerns that Vietnam only applies criminal penalties in cases relating to potentially life-threatening goods such as fake liquor and fake pharmaceuticals. However, in 2016, the police took action against a wider range of counterfeit goods, including clothing, batteries, cosmetics, and auto parts. One notable case that shows increased vigilance against counterfeit goods is a recent case in Ho Chi Minh City involving cosmetics that was handled by the police. In this case, the police intervened with a woman known to be trading in counterfeits and seized over 3,500 items of fake lipstick, cream, and lotion. The woman was charged with dealing in counterfeit goods, smuggling, and failure to register a business, and was fined a total of USD 11,000. The infringing items were ordered to be destroyed.

While the increase in anti-counterfeiting cases could, on one hand, be due to an increase in counterfeit goods, it also clearly reflects the government’s decisiveness to address the problem. By early 2016, the enforcement authorities had received direction from the government to escalate and strengthen their anti-counterfeiting activities on a national scale.

Notably, the government has directed the Ministry of Finance, MOIT, MOST and Ministry of Public Security to jointly recheck and improve the relevant regulations in order to strengthen the collaboration among the enforcement agencies in combating counterfeit goods and IP infringements. Getting all the enforcement agencies on the same page is a first but necessary step in being able to attack counterfeit goods and IP infringements at the root. Although the cooperation remains limited in some respects, it is the most visible effort of the enforcement authorities in anti-counterfeiting activities thus far.

As a result, there are prospects that anti-counterfeiting efforts will continue to increase in 2017. For example, the MOIT has recently requested the MSD to not only conduct inspections and raids against counterfeit goods across a wide range of consumer products, but also to focus on less visible counterfeit fertilizers and pesticides in the agriculture sector, given that the spread of counterfeit and low-standard goods in this sector was significantly noted in 2016. One other important future development to keep an eye on is potential improvements to the system of requesting preliminary injunctions for IP cases.

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