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

July 4, 2018

Vietnam: Is a VIPRI Opinion the Secret to Enforcement Success?

Subscribe to Updates
Managing Intellectual Property

When pursuing an IP enforcement case in Vietnam, rightsholders will often be advised by counsel of the need to obtain a “VIPRI opinion” as a first step. VIPRI (Vietnam Intellectual Property Research Institute), a quasi-governmental organization, is the only agency in Vietnam authorized to provide expert opinions (statutorily known as “assessment conclusions”) on IP infringement.

A Useful Enforcement Aid

Rightsholders in an infringement action may petition VIPRI to issue an official but non-binding opinion on whether an IP right (patent, industrial design, or trademark) is infringed. A favorable VIPRI opinion, finding that a product or service infringes an IP right, can then be submitted to an enforcement agency, such as the Inspectorate of the Ministry of Science and Technology, the Market Surveillance Department, or customs. Then, based on the non-binding opinion, the enforcement agency can consider whether to proceed with enforcing the IP rights of the complainant, such as by proceeding with an administrative raid and issuance of sanctions. Courts can also rule on IP cases, and a VIPRI opinion can be very persuasive evidence for the court to rule in the rightsholder’s favor.

Enforcement agencies do not require a VIPRI opinion to take action, and in many cases have taken action against infringers without a VIPRI opinion in hand. However, for matters such as trademark infringement where the marks differ slightly, or patent infringement where technical claims must be analyzed, the existence of the VIPRI opinion will help the enforcement agency to feel more comfortable to proceed with the enforcement action, and generally will result in a faster action with more predictable results. VIPRI is recognized as having a strong stable of technical experts, and many of its leaders and examiners are former leaders of Vietnam’s National Office of Intellectual Property (NOIP).

Obtaining a VIPRI Opinion

To seek a VIPRI opinion, the rightsholder must fill in a standard form that requires basic information such as the trademark or patent registration number of the petitioner. Samples or pictures of the infringing product may be submitted with the form. Additionally, a mini-brief is often filed wherein the petitioner can explain any nuances of the case, or provide more detailed analysis, such as by submitting a claim chart and infringement analysis in a patent infringement case.

Information on the well-known character or wide use and recognition in Vietnam of a trademark or design can be presented to support a VIPRI petition and may be persuasive. However, VIPRI will not opine on the well-known status of a trademark and cannot declare a trademark to be well-known – only the NOIP and the enforcement bodies will issue opinions on well-known status.

Generally, VIPRI opinions are issued within two to four weeks after the petition is filed. The longer end of this range typically arises in complex patent petitions, where technical claims must be analyzed. For very straightforward trademark infringement cases, a VIPRI opinion can sometimes be obtained in only a week.

Tips and Best Practices

In some cases, both the rightsholder and the alleged infringer could petition VIPRI, one seeking to prove infringement, one seeking to prove non-infringement. If a second petition is filed for the same case, VIPRI will generally follow the opinion it issued in relation to the first petition. Thus, it is advantageous to arrive first at VIPRI.

If multiple rights are being infringed in a matter, for example, if a product infringes both a word mark and a logo that are separately registered, it is advisable to seek a separate VIPRI opinion on each IP right. This is to safeguard against the situation in which a favorable opinion and an unfavorable opinion are contained in the same document, and when disclosing the favorable opinion, the unfavorable one is also necessarily disclosed to the infringer and perhaps other parties. Generally, there is no duty to disclose a VIPRI opinion. Thus, any separate negative opinion can be filed in a drawer, and not disclosed. The practitioner may then just use the favorable decision when submitting the case to the enforcement authorities.

Naturally, care should be taken in this case, as if such undisclosed opinion is later revealed in the course of litigation, it may cause the practitioner to lose credibility with the arbiter. Such opinion could be discovered if the alleged infringer were to later file a petition for an opinion on non-infringement, as mentioned above, in which case VIPRI would note that it had already ruled on the matter.

Overcoming an Unfavorable VIPRI Opinion

Many rightsholders may tend to give up on an infringement action if they are dealt an unfavorable VIPRI opinion on infringement. However, victory can be seized from the jaws of defeat in this situation. The rightsholder still has several options to consider, including not disclosing the opinion to the enforcement agency, seeking a separate professional opinion from the NOIP, or petitioning VIPRI to reverse its opinion. Though reversals are very rare, they have been granted on a few occasions, based on the submission of more persuasive evidence and particularly well-crafted arguments.

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