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

February 3, 2016

Vietnam: A Year of Changes in IP Enforcement

Subscribe to Updates
Managing Intellectual Property

IP enforcement in Vietnam saw continued development in the past year. As we have reported previously, 2014 saw several breakthrough cases in patent infringement, domain name dispute resolution and other areas. In 2015, the law continued to evolve as more and more complex questions arose.

Patent Jurisprudence

Key developments in patent litigation in 2015 arose in a case in which a European agrochemical company filed a civil action against a Vietnamese agrochemical producer in Ho Chi Minh City, charging that the Vietnamese company had infringed the European company’s pesticide patent. In response, the local company field an invalidation action in relation to the patent. Notably, the HCMC Court did not stay the patent litigation case pending the outcome of the invalidation proceeding, but rather proceeded to issue its judgment declaring patent infringement and imposing orders for the infringer to pay damages and attorney’s fees. This was an important development in jurisprudence that should be noted by practitioners.

Another positive development in jurisprudence was that in the same case, the HCMC Court took a rare stance in crafting its judgment to effectively act as a permanent injunction prohibiting the infringer from committing further infringement of the patent in question. Typically, in Vietnam, judgments do not contain such language, and therefore often leave winning rights holders dissatisfied.

A related development in patent litigation jurisprudence was the increasing role of opinions from the National Office of Intellectual Property (NOIP) in the handling of cases. Previously, enforcement authorities such as the Inspectorate of the Ministry of Science and Technology (MOST) would adjudicate a case based solely on an opinion from VIPRI, a quasi-governmental agency which can issue expert opinions. However, due to the increasing complexity of patent cases in Vietnam, as well as the high-profile nature of the cases, now that more of them involve local generic producers, there has been a trend for the enforcement authorities to also ask the NOIP for an expert opinion to be considered along with the VIPRI opinion. In a sense, MOST or other agencies feel more comfortable in handling a case when there are two expert opinions affirming the infringement. Although having two positive opinions puts the rights holder in a very strong position, this new step may prolong the time needed for settling a case.

Parallel Imports

The past year also saw new developments in relation to the handling of parallel imports under the law. Parallel imports are generally allowed under Vietnamese law. However, in a case involving a major European research-based pharmaceutical manufacturer, the manufacturer was able to employ a strategy to effectively prevent parallel imports into Vietnam based on regulatory issues.

In this case, the rights holder learned that a Vietnamese company was importing diabetes drugs into Vietnam that the company had manufactured for the Turkish market. While these drugs were “genuine” products of the manufacturer, and drugs under the same brand name had been authorized for circulation in Vietnam, Turkey requires different standards for storage than Vietnam, and the company believed the quality of the drugs would deteriorate more rapidly in Vietnam’s tropical climate, negatively impacting consumer health as well as the manufacturer’s reputation.

At the company’s request, the Hanoi Market Control Department in cooperation with the Inspectorate of the Department of Health conducted a sweep action against two major distributors of the products. After the raid, the authorities seized hundreds of parallel import products, and decided to sanction the distribution of the parallel imports by relying on regulatory aspects, especially labeling regulations, imposing a monetary fine on the infringers.

The authorities then sent a letter to the Drug Administration of Vietnam (DAV), bringing the DAV’s attention to the regulatory violations in particular and the parallel import situation in general. It is hoped this will lead the DAV to take further precautions in granting licenses for parallel importation.

Domain Name Disputes

In 2015, MOST continued to rule that various domain name registrations constituted IP infringements if the domain name included the trademark of a rights holder. However, the way in which such decisions were implemented has shifted. In 2014, a few cases were implemented by the Ministry of Information in Communications, which ordered the Vietnam domain name registry to revoke the names and allow the rights holders to register them. However, in 2015, as the domain name regulations are in flux, and the authorities are still debating how to handle such cases, there was a trend toward the authorities merely revoking infringing domain name registrations but not allowing the true rights holders to register them. Thus, the domain names are effectively suspended, and no one is allowed to register them.

What’s Ahead in 2016?

In 2016, we expect some of the following to be key developments:

  • Vietnam may adopt long-awaited legislation to help solve problems in combatting infringing company names, as well as infringing domain names, in the form of a joint circular between relevant competent authorities.
  • There will be increased action in the area of licensing of copyrighted works such as films and music due to more effective enforcement programs by rights holders.
  • Generic pharma companies will seek to fight back more strongly on the patent side.
  • Vietnam may enact implementing regulations relating to TPP provisions (such as relating to patent term extension, etc.).
Download Full Article
Related Professionals

Practices

Intellectual Property

Location

RELATED INSIGHTS​ 

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
July 13, 2026
When Decree No. 186/2026/ND-CP (Decree 186) takes effect on July 15, 2026, it will introduce the most significant reform of Vietnam’s administrative IP enforcement framework since Decree 99/2013/ND-CP was issued in 2013. These changes are expected to make administrative enforcement faster, more accessible, and better suited to the realities of modern IP disputes. Below are the principal reforms and their practical implications for rights holders and enforcement practitioners. The End of Notarization and Consular Legalization Among the most welcome procedural changes is the abolition of the notarization and consular legalization requirement for powers of attorney (POA) submitted in administrative enforcement proceedings. Under the previous regime, foreign rights holders were generally required to execute a POA, then have it notarized and consular legalized (if seeking customs recordal). In practice, this process frequently delayed enforcement by four to eight weeks, often long enough for infringing goods to disappear before authorities could intervene. Decree 186 removes this bottleneck, now requiring only an original or certified copy of the POA. If the document is in a foreign language, a Vietnamese translation is sufficient, provided it is certified by a competent authority or confirmed by the authorized Vietnamese IP representative. Consular legalization and notarization are no longer required. For rights holders, the practical impact is substantial. Administrative enforcement files that previously took weeks to prepare can now be completed in a matter of days, allowing much faster responses in time-sensitive matters such as warehouse raids, border interventions, and trade-fair enforcement. The decree also introduces a useful administrative simplification. Where an original POA has already been submitted to the same enforcement authority and remains valid, applicants may rely on a copy of that earlier submission by identifying the previous case file. This eliminates unnecessary duplication for rights holders pursuing multiple enforcement actions before the same
Read More
July 9, 2026
Recycling, upcycling, and refill-packaging models are now widely promoted as ways to reduce waste, lower carbon emissions, and respond to consumer demand for sustainable products. However, complications arise when these environmentally driven trends intersect with intellectual property law—particularly where reused or altered packaging continues to display third parties’ registered trademarks. Adding to this complexity, Thailand’s draft Sustainable Packaging Management Act aims to introduce new environmental compliance obligations that businesses must navigate alongside existing trademark concerns. Recycling and upcycling packaging may infringe trademark rights, especially in cases not protected by the first-sale doctrine—the principle that a trademark owner’s rights over a particular mark-bearing product end once the owner first sells it. Furthermore, even refill packaging carries legal risk due to specific statutory prohibitions under Thai law. Compounding these challenges, the draft Sustainable Packaging Management Act will impose extended producer responsibility (EPR) obligations on manufacturers and brand owners, requiring them to manage packaging throughout its lifecycle. These overlapping legal frameworks could deter manufacturers from pursuing ESG-aligned business models unless businesses understand how to navigate both trademark and environmental requirements. Under Thai law, this issue remains uncertain because the Trademark Act does not expressly codify the first sale doctrine, also known as the exhaustion of trademark rights. Generally, this doctrine provides that once a trademark owner has lawfully sold goods bearing its trademark, the owner’s right to control further resale of those particular goods is exhausted. The rationale is that the owner has already received commercial benefit from the first authorized sale; therefore, the purchaser should be free to resell or otherwise dispose of the goods. Although the doctrine is not expressly codified in the Trademark Act, Thai courts have recognized it in relation to genuine goods and parallel imports, as seen in a Supreme Court Judgment No. 2817/2543 in which the
Read More
July 6, 2026
Indonesia’s regulation on reporting online intellectual property (IP) infringement provides comprehensive procedural guidance for IP rights holders and their licensees in reporting online infringement complaints. Issued in December 2025 by the Ministry of Law as Regulation No. 47 of 2025 regarding Handling of Intellectual Property Infringement Reports in Electronic Systems, this regulation covers all types of IP rights. It also specifies documentation when reporting infringement, and lays out the procedures for examination, verification, and enforcement actions. Submission of Complaints Complainants may submit reports through the online system of the Directorate General of Intellectual Property (DGIP) or in person at the DGIP office. Complaints may also be filed through an authorized proxy. Under the regulation, complainants are required to provide the following information and documents: Personal details of the complainant; Brief description of the protected work or subject matter (i.e., type of IP and name or address of the infringing website, portal, account, or application, or a link to the location of the infringing content); Complete description of the alleged infringement; Certificate of registration or recordal of the relevant IP; Recordal of IP license agreement, if any; and Other supporting evidence. Verification and Examination Process Upon receiving a complaint, the responsible formality officer may request clarification or additional supporting documents. In the latter case, the complainant must then submit the necessary administrative documents within 14 days of the notification date. Once the documentation is deemed complete and sufficient, the case will be formally registered. Subsequently, the DGIP will establish a verification team to handle online IP violations, which will include the Civil Servant Investigator (PPNS), the Ministry of Communication and Digital Affairs, experts with relevant expertise in IP, and representatives from related associations such as AVISI (Indonesian Video Streaming Association). After examining the report, the team will prepare the Minutes
Read More