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

June 18, 2015

New Customs Enforcement Regime

Subscribe to Updates
Managing Intellectual Property

On January 30, 2015, the Ministry of Finance introduced Circular 13/2015/TT-BTC guiding the implementation of regulations in the new Law on Customs on Customs enforcement against IP infringement. Circular 13 took effect on March 15, 2015, and, in line with the new law, brought about changes to the border control measures that had been in place in Vietnam for the past decade. Two months into the new regime, it appears that these changes, though seemingly not substantial, have increased the transparency as well as the effectiveness of Customs enforcement.

Changes to Customs Recordal

In Vietnam, Customs enforcement includes recordal of IP rights (trademarks, patents, etc) and seizure of suspicious shipments at the border. In most cases, Customs recordal lays the foundation for Customs seizure (suspension of the clearance of the goods, in other words). If IP rights are recorded with Customs, Customs will notify the holders upon the discovery of any goods suspected of infringing their IP rights. Without prior Customs recordal, IP right holders still have the right to call on Customs to seize a specific suspected shipment that is bound for Vietnam. When Customs independently detects counterfeits, the prevailing regulations enable Customs to act ex officio with or without a prior Customs recordal.

The new regulations extended the validity of Customs recordal from one year to two years, with the option to renew for another two years. In addition, they assigned a new agency to assume responsibility for Customs recordal. Previously, IPR holders had to submit applications for recordal to the Anti-Smuggling and Investigation Department under the General Department of Vietnam Customs, which would review the applications and decide on the approval of the recordal. However, since the effective date of Circular 13, the Customs Control and Supervision Department has assumed responsibility for the recordal, allowing the Anti-Smuggling and Investigation Department to focus on actual IP enforcement instead of the paperwork of Customs recordal.

This shift of responsibility raised some concerns about the effectiveness of IP enforcement at the border if there was not frequent and close cooperation between the two departments. However, despite some lag time at the outset, the work of Customs recordal seems to be running smoothly under the Customs Control and Supervision Department, which is in close coordination with the Anti-Smuggling and Investigation Department and promptly informs them of decisions on recordal.

Changes to Customs Seizure

Upon the detection of suspected infringing goods, Customs will suspend the clearance of the goods and notify the IP right holder or its authorized IP agency. Circular 13 introduced the requirement that this notification must include photos of the goods in question, to enable the holders to make a more precise decision on whether to pursue Customs enforcement actions.

The new laws go into further detail about the timing for the Customs seizure process. In principle, if the holders desire a seizure, they must file an application with Customs within three working days from receipt of the notification. However, the previous laws did not set forth an express time frame for Customs’ follow-up actions. This loophole raised concerns about transparency in the process. Now, the system has changed, with Circular 13 specifying a time frame of five working days from the notification date for customs to decide whether to officially seize or release the goods. When the IP right holder calls for a Customs seizure, Customs must issue a decision on the official suspension of clearance of the goods within two working hours from the time it receives the complete application, if it accepts the holder’s request.

Also, the new Law on Customs and Circular 13 stipulate a window for the Customs seizure of 10 working days starting from the notification date, rather than the date on which the IP right holder receives the notification, as mentioned in the IP Law. This can effectively shorten the window by several days, as the delivery of the notification can take as long as a week if sent by post. During this period, the holder is entitled to collect further relevant information about the shipments in question for the purpose of assessing the possible infringement. The holder can also obtain expert opinions to support the assessment process. The result of the assessment or the expert opinion should be submitted to Customs to facilitate their resolution of the case. If the holder cannot meet the deadline for the Customs seizure, it can call for an extension of 10 further working days. If an expert opinion on the possibility of infringement is necessary, Customs will continue suspending the clearance of the goods until it receives the opinion.

The new regulations also introduce a regime in which Customs can act ex officio in cases of not only counterfeits but also other infringing goods. According to Article 14.3 of Circular 13, even without a request for protection of IP rights, Customs will still inspect the goods, take samples and coordinate with the Anti-Smuggling and Investigation Department and/or other relevant Customs divisions to decide on the detention of goods suspected to infringe specific IP rights as a result of their inspection of the actual goods and/or the Customs dossier.

We believe that in light of the increased transparency in the process of Customs seizure as well as new ex officio power of Customs, the new regulations will lift the effectiveness of Customs enforcement to a new level.

Download Full Article
Related Professionals

Practices

Intellectual Property

Location

RELATED INSIGHTS​ 

September 24, 2026
Vietnam is implementing and developing a broad package of regulatory reforms that could reshape how IP, data, digital platforms, and product authenticity are regulated and enforced. Several of the key measures have been led by the Ministry of Public Security in its legislative and administrative capacity, as part of a broader government effort. The core reform package consists of four key legal instruments: proposed amendments to the Criminal Code, a proposed new Data Security Law, a draft Decree on Product Identification, Authentication and Traceability, and the newly enacted Decree No. 330/2026/ND-CP. These instruments include rules on criminal enforcement, data security, electronic identification, product identification and traceability, administrative violations, and cybersecurity sanctions. Combined, these measures will affect copyright enforcement, industrial property rights, trade secrets, AI training data, product provenance, online takedowns, valuation of counterfeit goods and electronic evidence. It is worth noting that, in addition to strengthening criminal penalties for IP crimes, Vietnam’s emerging regulatory framework increasingly treats infringement, data misuse, product authentication, and platform-enabled violations as interconnected regulatory and enforcement challenges. For rights holders and foreign investors, this could mean stronger tools against counterfeiting and online infringement, but also more compliance obligations around data, traceability, AI, platform controls and government-facing reporting. Expansion of Criminal IP Enforcement Proposed amendments to Article 225 of the Criminal Code would expand criminal copyright exposure beyond reproduction and distribution to cover large-scale commercial public performance and online communication of works, phonograms and video recordings. This is important because piracy is increasingly about streaming, unauthorized communication, and platform access models rather than physical copying. Aggravated copyright infringement could be subject to up to 10 years in prison for individuals and fines of up to VND 6 billion (about USD 228,300) for commercial legal entities. The amended Article 226 would expand criminal industrial property liability beyond
Read More
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 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