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 24, 2018

Answers to Commonly Asked Questions About Franchising in Vietnam

Subscribe to Updates

As of mid-2018, more than 200 franchises had been registered in Vietnam, including franchises in food and beverages, fashion, education, and other sectors. With half of its population of nearly 100 million under the age of 30, Vietnam is one of the fastest growing franchise markets in the world.

Before entering Vietnam, foreign franchisors should have a solid understanding of the country’s franchising regulations and practice. Below, we answer 10 questions commonly asked by prospective franchisors.

1. Are franchises required to be registered in Vietnam?

Foreign franchisors in any business sector must register their franchising activities with Vietnam’s Ministry of Industry and Trade (MOIT) before conducting franchising activities in Vietnam. A Franchise Disclosure Document (FDD), which includes information about the franchisor, costs and fees payable by the franchisee, and other relevant matters, must be filed with the MOIT as part of the registration process. In practice, registration with the MOIT typically takes about one to two months from the date of submitting a duly prepared application dossier.

Domestic franchisors do not need to register, but are required to notify their local Department of Industry and Trade of their activities.

2. We just set up a Singaporean company to act as the master franchisee for the Asia-Pacific region. Can it act as the master franchisee even if it was just set up last month?

The Vietnamese franchise regulations require that a franchise system must have been in operation for more than one year prior to franchising such system in Vietnam. However, in its current practice, the MOIT usually interprets this one-year qualification to mean that the local franchisor entity (the Singaporean company, in this case), as opposed to the franchise system, must have been in operation for more than one year. Thus, if the proposed master franchisee (sub-franchisor) has only been established for one month, the MOIT is likely to reject the registration, though they will consider each application on a case-by-case basis.

3. Are there any pre-disclosure requirements for franchisors in Vietnam?

Prospective franchisees are supposed to be given at least 15 days to review the FDD before the date of entry into the franchise agreement.

4. We are in a hurry to sign the franchise agreement, can the pre-disclosure requirements be waived?

In practice, some franchisees will sign an agreement to waive the 15-day pre-disclosure requirement. However, it is recommended that the FDD be provided to the potential franchisee before or at the signing of the franchise agreement.

5. Do we need to have our trademark registered in order to enter into a franchise agreement, and to register our franchise?

The franchising rules require the franchisor to have a registered trademark. However, if the trademark is pending (i.e., has been applied for in Vietnam, but is not yet granted), the MOIT may make an exception on a case-by-case basis. This exception has not been granted in all cases.

6. Can we choose foreign arbitration as the venue for resolving any disputes with the franchisee?

Choosing foreign arbitration is one of several viable options. However, we recommend choosing local arbitration at the Vietnam International Arbitration Center (VIAC). VIAC awards can be directly enforced, whereas foreign arbitral awards must go through a judicial procedure for recognition that can be time-consuming, with an unpredictable outcome. Recent reports indicate that about 75% of foreign arbitral awards are not successfully recognized and enforced, while for domestically rendered awards, only 35% are set aside by courts. Thus, statistically, domestic awards have a better chance, though at least two foreign arbitral awards in the franchising sector in Vietnam have been enforced. For example, a U.S. arbitral award was successfully enforced against a real estate brokerage franchisee in Vietnam.

It is a good idea to also have a carve-out for local litigation for injunctions and/or administrative actions related to IP breaches or infringements. In a case involving a rogue franchisee, an administrative raid by the Ministry of Science and Technology (MOST) Inspectorate was taken to force the rogue franchisee to cease using the franchisor’s trademark.

7. Should we also sign a trademark license agreement with the franchisee?

There is no precedent in Vietnam stating explicitly that the use of a trademark through a franchise agreement is guaranteed to accrue to the trademark registrant (and thus can be used as evidence to ward off a cancellation for non-use), though such conclusion would be logical and intuitive. However, by recording a trademark license agreement with the National Office of Intellectual Property (NOIP), a trademark registrant can increase the chances, if not 100% ensure, that such use inures to the trademark registrant. Thus, some very prudent franchisors choose to record their trademark license agreements with the NOIP.

8. Our franchisee plans to set up a local company incorporating the franchised brand name into the company name to act as the franchisee. Is that OK?

This situation seems to come up more and more in Vietnam and is unadvisable. If the local franchisee incorporates the foreign brand name or a local-language equivalent into its corporate name, and the franchising relationship breaks down, it would be very difficult to force the local company to change its name, even with proper license agreements in place. This is because the business licensing authorities in Vietnam are always very reluctant to force any company to change its name, even when there is a clear legal basis. It can be done, but would be time-consuming.

9. Are non-compete provisions enforceable in Vietnam?

Non-compete provisions have been included in many franchise agreements in force in Vietnam. Until recently, there had not been much precedent on the enforcement of such agreements. However, in an employment context, the Ho Chi Minh City Court recently upheld a non-compete agreement as a civil agreement between two contracting parties that should be respected and is enforceable. The court awarded damages to the employer in that case, where the employee failed to abide by a covenant to not work for a competitor for 12 months. Thus, there may be a strong basis to have a non-compete agreement enforced in Vietnam. However, it is worth noting that, in Vietnam, a lower court’s decision (such as the decision of the Ho Chi Minh City Court) is not regarded as a precedent. Only a decision of the Supreme People’s Court which is specifically declared by the court as a decision precedent will have this status.

10. Are there annual disclosure requirements that franchisors in Vietnam must follow?

Yes, franchisors are required to file a disclosure report every year before January 15. The report should include updated financial statements, and should amend any changes to the franchise system that are noted in Sections A and B of the required contents of the FDD under Circular 09, which is the primary legislation governing forms in franchising registration. Any changes to Section A items must also be informed on an ad hoc basis whenever such changes occur. Section A changes include changes in the trademarks that are franchised, and changes in name, address, form of business, or franchising sector of the franchisor.

Download Full Article
Related Professionals

Practices

Corporate/M&A

Intellectual Property

Location

RELATED INSIGHTS​ 

September 21, 2026
Thailand’s first-to-file trademark system has a serious vulnerability: it lacks both an explicit mechanism for refusing bad-faith registrations and any means of invalidating them in court after the five-year limitation period has expired. While brand owners worldwide confront trademark squatting, Thailand’s statutory silence stands out, particularly in light of AIPPI’s 2017 Resolution Q249, which recommended that every jurisdiction provide clear tools to address bad faith at all stages of the trademark lifecycle. Nearly a decade later, Thailand has yet to act. This article proposes a concrete reform blueprint, drawing on the legislative models of China, the United Kingdom, and the European Union. The Statutory Gap Under the Thai Trademark Act B.E. 2534, no provision expressly authorizes examiners to reject an application on grounds of bad faith. Section 8(10) addresses well-known marks but offers no relief where the targeted mark lacks well-known status. Practitioners have resorted to Section 8(9)—which bars marks “contrary to public order, morality, or public policy”—as a workaround. However, this provision was designed to address the characteristics of the mark itself, not the applicant’s intent. Thai Supreme Court decisions have split on whether it can reach bad-faith conduct, creating persistent legal uncertainty. The gap extends beyond examination. Civil actions to cancel a bad-faith registration must be brought within five years—a deadline that frequently expires before foreign brand owners discover the squatted mark. Cancellation through the Board of Trademarks remains available but is slow, costly, and subject to court appeal, leaving bad-faith registrations in force during protracted proceedings. The system effectively rewards squatters and penalizes legitimate owners. Lessons from International Best Practices Several major jurisdictions have already closed this gap. China’s 2019 amendment to Article 4 of the Trademark Law introduced an absolute ground for refusal: “bad faith trademark applications without intent to use shall be rejected.” Bad
Read More
September 15, 2026
The Myanmar Investment Commission (MIC) has issued a notification that gives investors with projects in Myanmar clearer guidance for securing approval and for changing, expanding, or exiting an approved project. Issued on August 19, 2026, MIC Notification No. 5/2026 replaces MIC Notification No. 26/2021 and sets procedures for state or regional investment committees to review, approve, and supervise investment projects, including project amendments, investment increases, land-use rights applications, compliance inspections, and suspension or termination of approved businesses. Endorsement Application Timeline and Deemed Acceptance In Myanmar, prospective investors seeking approval under the Myanmar Investment Law generally do so through an MIC permit or an MIC endorsement, depending on the nature of the investment. While certain large-scale investment projects require an MIC permit, projects that are not required to obtain an MIC permit may instead apply for an MIC endorsement. Investors seeking MIC endorsement for their planned projects typically submit their applications to the relevant state or regional investment committee. These committees are established under the Myanmar Investment Law and are authorized to approve investments of less than USD 5 million, subject to the project’s nature and location. MIC Notification No. 5/2026 specifies that upon receiving an endorsement application, the relevant investment committee office will check it for completeness and determine whether it can be considered at the state or regional level or must be referred to the MIC; if it must be forwarded to the MIC, this will be done within 10 working days. If an application is within its purview, the committee may reject the endorsement application within 15 working days of receipt; otherwise, the application is deemed accepted. If approved, the endorsement certificate will be issued within 10 working days of the approval decision, subject to applicable procedures. Endorsement Certificate Amendment The notification clarifies which amendments a state
Read More
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