Vietnam is charging counterfeit sellers. Is your evidence ready?

On 1 October, police and market surveillance officers inspecting a clothing shop in Thái Nguyên, in northern Vietnam, found 974 garments bearing Adidas, Louis Vuitton and Dior marks. According to the Ministry of Public Security, expert examination identified the goods as counterfeit, with an assessed value of more than VND330 million. On 16 October, police reported criminal proceedings against the shop owner under Article 226 of the Penal Code, and said the investigation was continuing. [1]

Police in Hưng Yên, also in northern Vietnam, have charged two other fashion-shop owners this month, one of them over 2,116 suspected fake items. [2]

The Thái Nguyên report is worth reading closely. Before criminal proceedings were announced, an expert had examined the goods and they had been valued. Finding the stock was only the first step.

What the recent activity tells us

Vietnam’s intensive IP enforcement campaign ran from 7 to 30 May 2026, following the Prime Minister’s Official Dispatch No. 38/CĐ-TTg of 5 May, with instructions to continue enforcement afterwards. It covered trademarks, geographical indications, copyright and other infringements. [3][4]

The government later reported that 85 criminal cases had been opened between 7 May and 24 June. Of these, 74 concerned trademarks or geographical indications and 11 concerned copyright and related rights. Authorities also handled 2,756 administrative cases. Over the same period, courts accepted 11 cases and tried 7, involving 8 defendants. All these figures cover IP enforcement in general, not just counterfeit goods. [5]

The action did not stop at the end of May. In August alone, the Ministry of Science and Technology reported 76 criminal cases opened and 1,117 handled administratively. [6]

That’s a lot of activity, but it doesn’t tell us whether counterfeiting has fallen. Only a handful of cases reached trial in that period, a reminder that a charge is an early step, not an outcome. And administrative action still makes up most of the work.

Be clear about what the problem is

In Quảng Ngãi, in central Vietnam, police reported criminal proceedings against a couple over the “Ngọc Linh” geographical indication. Police say the couple bought ginseng roots with no traceability stamps and applied their own “Ngọc Linh” labels and stamps, then sold the products in their shop and promoted them on Facebook and YouTube. The product may well have been ginseng. The offence alleged is using the indication without the right to do so. Like the Thái Nguyên case, this one hasn’t reached a conviction. [7]

“Fake” can describe very different problems: a copied trademark, a misused geographical indication, or a mark used by someone who once had permission. When you raise a complaint, say which right is protected, who is entitled to use it and what the seller is alleged to have done. That tells the authorities what they need to investigate, and it avoids a case built on the wrong right.

What should a brand have ready?

A memorandum of understanding signed on 9 October gives a practical indication. Vietnam’s market surveillance authority asked P&G to provide and update protection records, trademark information and product-identification materials, and the two will share information on suspected premises, warehouses and online accounts. [8] I would use that as the starting point for four checks.

Can we show what is protected?

Have the relevant Vietnam protection records, ownership details and authority to act in one place.

A Ho Chi Minh City case announced on 18 October shows why this matters. Police charged a trader who, they say, had sold red dates with the mark owner’s daughter since 2022, and whose company carried on using the registered “Hằng Du Mục” mark without the owner’s consent. Officers found almost 29 tonnes of dates bearing the mark. [9] The reports don’t say whether a written agreement ever covered his use of the mark, and that question is likely to matter as the case goes on. If a licence, distributor or family arrangement affects your position, put it in writing now. Proving who had permission, and when it ended, is much harder once a dispute has started.

Can we explain how to identify the goods?

Product guides, in Vietnamese, need to work for someone who doesn’t know the range as well as your team does. Show the relevant features, explain the differences and allow for genuine variations in packaging or design.

In one market survey I worked on, the best copies were packaged so well that they couldn’t be told apart from the genuine product by eye. What gave them away was the price, well below the genuine retail range, and a product variant that didn’t exist in the brand’s own range. Low price alone doesn’t prove a fake, because smuggled genuine goods are cheap too, but it told us which samples to send for examination. A guide that only shows what genuine packaging looks like would have missed both signs.

Have someone available to answer technical questions. Your guidance helps the examiner, but any formal examination still has to be done.

Can we link the goods to the seller?

A photograph may show a suspect product, but it may say little about who sold it or where it came from.

Preserve the relevant listings, account details, purchase records, packaging, delivery information and samples. Record when and how the material was obtained, and how samples were handled. Agree the collection approach with local advisers so the evidence can do the job you need it for.

Who will bring it together?

Protection records may sit with legal, product knowledge with a technical team, and seller information with brand protection or a distributor.

Give one person responsibility for coordinating the response. They don’t need to hold every answer, but they should know where to get it and who can approve its release.

Start with what you want to achieve

In my experience, a criminal referral carries more deterrent weight, and enforcement is clearly a government priority this year. It’s also slower, and once it starts a law enforcement or government agency runs the case and you have less say in it. Administrative action is usually quicker and more predictable, though the outcome is an administrative penalty rather than a criminal one. Which fits depends on what you’re after. Do you want to stop a particular seller, preserve evidence, understand the supply chain or deal with repeat activity? Talk the routes through with local counsel and the relevant authorities, including what each would need and how long it’s likely to take.

A good first step is to ask: if authorities asked for the supporting evidence tomorrow, what could we provide, and what would we still need to find?

This article is general commentary, not legal advice. Before acting on a particular matter, take advice from a suitably qualified adviser on Vietnamese law and your own facts.

Sources

1. Ministry of Public Security. Khởi tố 01 bị can về tội "Xâm phạm quyền sở hữu công nghiệp" (Thái Nguyên). Published 2026-10-16. Vietnamese. By: Ministry of Public Security. Accessed 22 October 2026.
2. Soha. Công an kiểm tra cửa hàng thời trang, khởi tố ông chủ Lê Tuấn Đức. Published 2026-10-21. Vietnamese. By: Soha. Accessed 22 October 2026. See also: thuonghieucongluan.com.vn, congluan.vn, talentedip.com.
3. Government of Vietnam (legal documents portal). Official Dispatch No. 38/CĐ-TTg of the Prime Minister. Published 2026-05-05. Vietnamese. By: Government of Vietnam (legal documents portal). Accessed 22 October 2026.
4. Ministry of Science and Technology. Ra quân toàn quốc xử lý vi phạm sở hữu trí tuệ từ 7-30/5/2026. Published 2026-05. Vietnamese. By: Ministry of Science and Technology. Accessed 22 October 2026.
5. Government News (baochinhphu.vn). Phát hiện hơn 3.300 vụ có dấu hiệu xâm phạm quyền sở hữu trí tuệ, khởi tố 85 vụ án. Published 2026-07-13. Vietnamese. By: Government News (baochinhphu.vn). Accessed 22 October 2026.
6. Ministry of Science and Technology. Tháng 8: 76 vụ án bị khởi tố, thực thi sở hữu trí tuệ chuyển mạnh sang xử lý hình sự. Published 2026-09-13. Vietnamese. By: Ministry of Science and Technology. Accessed 22 October 2026.
7. Ministry of Public Security. Quảng Ngãi: Khởi tố 02 đối tượng xâm phạm quyền sở hữu công nghiệp sâm Ngọc Linh. Published 2026-10-11. Vietnamese. By: Ministry of Public Security. Accessed 22 October 2026.
8. Domestic Market Surveillance and Development Agency (DMS). Tăng cường phối hợp giữa Cục TTTN và P&G trong bảo vệ quyền sở hữu trí tuệ. Published 2026-10-09. Vietnamese. By: Domestic Market Surveillance and Development Agency (DMS). Accessed 22 October 2026.
9. Ho Chi Minh City Police. Bắt, khởi tố Sun Yupeng về tội xâm phạm quyền sở hữu công nghiệp. Published 2026-10-18. Vietnamese. By: Ho Chi Minh City Police. Accessed 22 October 2026. See also: talentedip.com.