In recent years, Vietnam’s rapid economic development and booming manufacturing industry have made intellectual property protection particularly important in this emerging market in Southeast Asia. Recognizing the key role of intellectual property in attracting foreign investment and promoting local innovation, the Vietnamese government is actively improving relevant laws and regulations and strengthening law enforcement. The revised Intellectual Property Law in 2022 marks an important step for Vietnam in patent, trademark and copyright protection, further aligning with international standards. However, despite the continuous improvement of the legal framework, there is still room for improvement in law enforcement efficiency and the maturity of judicial practice, which brings a complex situation of both opportunities and challenges to enterprises, especially small and medium-sized enterprises.

For SMEs doing business in Vietnam, intellectual property protection is an area that cannot be ignored but is full of challenges. First, many companies do not have a good understanding of Vietnam’s intellectual property legal system and often overlook the importance of timely registration and protection of their own intellectual property rights. Secondly, when faced with infringements, SMEs often feel powerless due to lack of funds and legal resources. Furthermore, the problem of counterfeiting and shoddy products in the Vietnamese market remains serious, posing a threat to brand reputation and market share. In addition, in the process of technology transfer and cooperative innovation, how to protect core technologies from being illegally copied or leaked is also a major problem facing SMEs.

This article aims to provide a practical guide to intellectual property protection for small and medium-sized enterprises by analyzing ten typical cases. These cases cover multiple aspects such as trademarks, patents, copyrights, trade secrets, etc., with both successful experience in rights protection and profound lessons. By deeply analyzing the background, process and results of each case, we hope to help readers better understand the actual operation and potential pitfalls of intellectual property protection in Vietnam. This can not only enhance the risk awareness of enterprises, but also provide reference for the formulation of effective intellectual property strategies. In the ever-changing Vietnamese market, only by fully understanding and effectively protecting their own intellectual property rights can small and medium-sized enterprises remain invincible in the fierce competition and achieve continuous innovation and long-term development.

1. Case 1: Trademark infringement and recognition of well-known trademarks

This case involves the experience of “Youth Flying” (pseudonym), a well-known clothing brand in China, infringing its trademark in the Vietnamese market. This case not only demonstrates the operation of Vietnam’s intellectual property protection system, but also highlights the importance and challenges of SMEs in protecting brand rights in overseas markets.

Case background: In 2018, “Youth Flying” began to enter the Vietnamese market and quickly won the favor of young Vietnamese consumers with its unique design and high-quality products. However, at the end of 2019, the company discovered that a large number of counterfeit goods appeared in the Vietnamese market, which not only used trademarks that were very similar to “Youth Flying”, but also imitated its unique packaging design. Even more shocking is that the manufacturer of these counterfeit products, “Young Fashion” (Vietnamese transliteration), has registered a trademark in Vietnam that is highly similar to “Youth Flying”.

Legal proceedings and key issues: In early 2020, “Youth Flying” decided to file a trademark infringement lawsuit in Vietnam. The key issues in the case include: (1) Although “Youth Flying” is well-known in China, it has not yet registered a trademark in Vietnam. Does it have the right to assert trademark rights? (2) Can “Youth Flying” be recognized as a well-known trademark and thus receive broader protection? (3) Are the similarities between the two trademarks sufficient to constitute infringement? During the litigation process, “Youth Flying” provided a large amount of evidence, including sales data in the Chinese market, international media reports, and Vietnamese consumer awareness surveys, to prove the popularity and distinctiveness of its trademark.

Case outcome and impact: After nearly 18 months of trial, the Vietnamese court finally determined that “青春飞扬” is a well-known trademark, ruled that the trademark registration of “年轻时尚” is invalid, and ordered it to stop producing and selling counterfeit products and compensate for economic losses of approximately 5 billion Vietnamese dong (approximately US$220,000). This ruling has attracted widespread attention in the Vietnamese intellectual property community and is regarded as a milestone case in protecting the rights and interests of foreign brands, especially small and medium-sized enterprises.

Lessons for SMEs: This case provides several important lessons for SMEs: (1) the importance of international trademark registration in advance. Even if you have not yet entered the target market, you should consider making arrangements early; (2) the necessity of systematically collecting and preserving evidence of brand awareness, which is crucial for obtaining recognition as a well-known trademark; (3) when infringement is discovered, legal action should be taken decisively to prevent the problem from escalating; and (4) the importance of hiring a professional team that is familiar with local laws and can provide targeted strategic advice.

This case clearly demonstrates the challenges and opportunities for SMEs to protect intellectual property rights in the Vietnamese market. Despite the difficult process, “Qingchun Feiyang” successfully safeguarded its rights and interests in the end, setting an example for other SMEs planning to enter the Vietnamese market. It reminds us that in the process of internationalization, intellectual property protection should be promoted simultaneously with business expansion. Only in this way can we gain a firm foothold in the fiercely competitive overseas market and achieve long-term development.

2. Case 2: Patent Infringement and Technological Innovation Protection

This case reveals the increasingly complex patent protection environment in Vietnam, especially in the rapidly developing electronics manufacturing industry. In 2019, a large electronics company from South Korea accused Viet Electronics (a pseudonym), a local electronic accessories manufacturer in Vietnam, of infringing its invention patent in lithium battery protection circuits. This case has attracted widespread attention in Vietnam’s manufacturing industry because it involves multiple sensitive topics such as technological innovation, patent protection and local enterprise development.

The core dispute in the case is whether the battery protection circuit of a certain model of mobile phones produced by Viet Electronics infringes the patent rights of the Korean company. The Korean company claims that the technology used by Viet Electronics is highly similar to its patent obtained in Vietnam in 2015, constituting direct infringement. However, Viet Electronics argues that it uses independently developed technology that is substantially different from the Korean company’s patent.

The technical appraisal process has become a key link and major difficulty in the case. The Vietnam Intellectual Property Institute (VIPRI) was designated as the official appraisal agency. The main challenges faced during the appraisal process include: interpretation of patent claims, reverse engineering analysis of the products involved, and judgment of functional equivalence. In particular, when judging non-textual technical features, appraisers need to have a deep understanding of the principles of electronic circuit design, which poses a severe test to Vietnam’s relatively young intellectual property judicial system.

After nearly 18 months of litigation, the People’s Court of Ho Chi Minh City finally made a ruling in favor of the Korean company. The court determined that Viet Electronics’ products did infringe the Korean company’s patent rights and required Viet Electronics to immediately stop producing and selling infringing products, destroy inventory, and pay approximately US$500,000 in compensation. This amount of compensation is at a relatively high level in patent infringement cases in Vietnam, reflecting the court’s increasing attention to intellectual property protection.

This case has sounded the alarm for Vietnamese SMEs and also provided valuable lessons. First, enterprises should strengthen their patent search and analysis capabilities and conduct adequate patent risk assessments at the early stages of product development. Second, they should establish a sound intellectual property management system, including documentation of the technological innovation process, so as to provide strong evidence in possible disputes. Third, enterprises should consider formulating patent layout strategies and building a defensive barrier by applying for their own patents.

Finally, this case also highlights the vulnerability of small and medium-sized enterprises when facing patent litigation by multinational corporations. It is recommended that enterprises actively seek the help of professional legal advisors and, if necessary, consider establishing a healthy relationship with industry leaders through patent licensing or technical cooperation, so as to avoid potential disputes and promote their own technological progress. The Vietnamese government should also consider setting up a special intellectual property assistance fund for small and medium-sized enterprises to help local enterprises better cope with intellectual property challenges in international competition.

3. Case 3: Copyright Disputes and Software Protection

In Vietnam’s booming tech startup ecosystem, software copyright protection has become an increasingly important topic. This case focuses on how a Vietnamese startup copes with the dilemma of its core software code being stolen, and shows the typical process of handling software copyright disputes in Vietnam.

Case background: VisionTech, a startup company in Hanoi that focuses on artificial intelligence image recognition, discovered in early 2021 that the core algorithm it developed was used by its competitor Smartview in a newly launched product. VisionTech suspected that the leak was caused by a former employee who took the code with him to another job. This incident not only threatens VisionTech’s market position, but also its future financing prospects.

VisionTech faced huge challenges in copyright registration and evidence. Although Vietnamese law stipulates that software copyright is generated immediately after creation and does not require registration, VisionTech had not previously conducted official registration. In order to enhance the effectiveness of evidence in the lawsuit, the company immediately proceeded to re-register the software copyright. At the same time, they collected detailed development documents, Git submission records, employee labor contracts and other evidence to prove that they were the earliest creators of the disputed code.

The mediation process was full of twists and turns. Before the formal lawsuit, both parties accepted the mediation of the Vietnam Association for Science and Technology. VisionTech asked Smartview to immediately stop using the infringing code, compensate for the losses and make a public apology. Smartview argued that its code was independently developed, and the two sides reached a stalemate. After several rounds of difficult negotiations, a settlement was finally reached: Smartview admitted that it had used some of VisionTech’s code, agreed to pay a usage fee of 5 billion Vietnamese dong (about 220,000 US dollars), and signed a strict confidentiality agreement. In exchange, VisionTech allowed Smartview to continue to use the technology within a limited scope, but the source of the technology must be marked.

This case has sounded the alarm for Vietnamese software companies in terms of intellectual property management. Experts suggest that start-ups should:

• Timely registration of software copyright is not mandatory, but it is conducive to dispute resolution;
• Establish a strict code management system and use a version control system to record the development process;
• Sign confidentiality agreements with employees to clarify the ownership of intellectual property rights;
• Conduct regular IP audits to identify potential risks;
• When infringement is discovered, quickly collect evidence and seek legal assistance.

VisionTech’s experience shows that in Vietnam’s rapidly developing technology environment, software companies must raise their awareness of intellectual property protection. Through reasonable preventive measures and decisive rights protection actions, start-ups can protect their own interests in the fierce market competition and achieve continuous innovation and development.

4. Case 4: Trade Secret Protection and Employee Non-compete

Against the backdrop of the rapid development of Vietnam’s manufacturing industry, the protection of trade secrets has increasingly become the key to maintaining the core competitiveness of enterprises. This case focuses on a core technology leakage incident in the manufacturing industry in Ho Chi Minh City, and explores in depth the legal practice of trade secret protection in Vietnam.

Case background: In 2019, Company A, a Sino-Vietnamese joint venture specializing in the production of high-precision plastic molds, discovered that its former technical director, Mr. Li, had worked for a local competitor, Company B, for a short period of time after leaving the company, and was suspected of leaking Company A’s core production processes. These processes, including special mold cooling system design and proprietary surface treatment technology, are the key to Company A’s foothold in the Vietnamese market. Company A immediately filed a lawsuit with the People’s Court of Ho Chi Minh City, demanding that Company B and Mr. Li stop using the relevant technology and compensate for the losses.

Standards for identifying trade secrets: One of the focuses of this case is whether the core technology of Company A constitutes a trade secret in the legal sense. The court made a determination based on three aspects in accordance with Article 4 of the Vietnamese Intellectual Property Law: (1) Confidentiality of information: The court held that Company A’s mold cooling system and surface treatment technology were not public information and met the confidentiality requirements; (2) Commercial value: These technologies have brought significant market advantages to Company A and have substantial commercial value; (3) Confidentiality measures: Company A provided evidence such as employee confidentiality agreements and access control records to prove that reasonable confidentiality measures were taken. Based on this, the court determined that these technologies constituted trade secrets.

Court ruling and enforcement: After six months of trial, the court finally ruled that Company B and Li had violated Company A’s trade secrets. The main contents of the ruling include: (1) Company B and Li must immediately stop using the technology involved; (2) destroy all materials containing the trade secrets; (3) jointly compensate Company A for economic losses of 5 billion Vietnamese dong (approximately US$217,000); (4) Li must not work in the same industry for three years. It is worth noting that the court took into account Company B’s actual payment ability when enforcing the compensation and adopted an installment payment method, which reflects the flexibility of Vietnamese courts in intellectual property cases.

How can SMEs build a trade secret protection system? This case has sounded a wake-up call for SMEs operating in Vietnam and also provided valuable experience. Enterprises can start to build a trade secret protection system from the following aspects: (1) clearly define the company’s trade secrets and regularly update the list; (2) sign detailed confidentiality agreements and non-competition agreements with employees to clarify the liability for breach of contract; (3) implement a hierarchical confidentiality system to control the scope of knowledge of core information; (4) establish a technical handover and information deletion procedure for resigned employees; (5) regularly conduct intellectual property training to improve employees’ confidentiality awareness; (6) take legal action in a timely manner to protect rights and interests when leaks are discovered.

This case clearly demonstrates Vietnam’s legal practice in trade secret protection and highlights the importance of employee management in intellectual property protection. For small and medium-sized enterprises that plan to invest in Vietnam or are already operating locally, establishing a sound trade secret protection mechanism is not only a legal requirement, but also a necessary measure to maintain market competitiveness.

5. Case 5: Design Patent and Product Innovation

This case focuses on the successful protection of the design patent rights of Hanoi Furniture Innovations Co., Ltd., a local furniture design company in Vietnam. This case not only demonstrates the importance of design patents in Vietnam, but also provides valuable inspiration for small and medium-sized enterprises on how to strike a balance between innovation and intellectual property protection.

Case background: In 2019, Hanoi Home Creative Company launched a coffee table design that combines traditional Vietnamese elements with modern aesthetics. The design was quickly welcomed by the market after its launch and became the company’s flagship product. However, only half a year after the product was launched, the company found that almost identical imitations appeared on the market, which seriously affected the company’s sales and brand image.

Design patent application strategy: Fortunately, the company realized the importance of intellectual property protection at the early stage of product development. They adopted the following strategies: First, they conducted a comprehensive patent search before finalizing the design to ensure the novelty of the design. Second, they chose to file design patent applications in Vietnam and potential export markets at the same time to build a comprehensive protection network. Finally, they cleverly used the fast-track examination channel of the Vietnam Intellectual Property Office to obtain patent authorization before the product was officially released.

Infringement determination and compensation calculation: After discovering the infringement, the company immediately took legal action. During the court trial, the key point of dispute was the determination of the similarity between the defendant’s product and the patented design. The experts hired by the company successfully demonstrated the substantial similarity between the two in terms of overall visual effects. The court finally determined that there was infringement and, referring to factors such as the plaintiff’s sales loss and the defendant’s illegal income, ruled that the amount of compensation reached 5 billion VND (about 217,000 US dollars). This amount is at a relatively high level in intellectual property cases involving small and medium-sized enterprises in Vietnam.

Balancing product design innovation and IP protection: This case highlights the importance of balancing innovation and protection in a rapidly changing market. Hanoi Home Creative’s success stems from the following: 1) Incorporating IP strategies into the early stages of product development; 2) Establishing a rapid design iteration and patent application process to ensure timely protection of innovation; 3) Cultivating employees’ IP awareness and integrating protection awareness into the company culture; 4) Rationally allocating resources to find a balance between innovation investment and IP protection.

This case provides valuable experience for SMEs in Vietnam and other emerging markets. It shows that even with limited resources, SMEs can protect their innovations and turn them into sustainable competitive advantages by developing smart IP strategies in the face of fierce market competition. For foreign companies planning to enter the Vietnamese market, this case also emphasizes the importance of early planning for IP protection and the progress of the Vietnamese legal system in protecting IP.

6. Case 6: Geographical Indication Protection and Traditional Industry Upgrading

Mong Cai grilled squid (Mực một nắng Hạ Long) in Vietnam is a typical case of successfully using geographical indication protection to enhance the competitiveness of traditional industries. This specialty seafood from Quang Ninh Province is not only well-known in China, but also attracts many international tourists. This case study analyzes in detail the transformation process of Mong Cai grilled squid from traditional food to a legally protected geographical indication product, as well as the significant economic benefits this transformation has brought to local small and medium-sized enterprises.

The application process began in 2017, led by the People’s Committee of Mong Cai City, in collaboration with a number of local small and medium-sized seafood processing companies. The main challenge facing the application team was how to define the uniqueness and geographical relevance of the product. Through systematic historical research and field investigations, they proved that Mong Cai’s special climatic conditions and traditional production processes have a decisive impact on product quality. The application process lasted nearly two years, involving multiple rounds of technical demonstration and publicity, and was finally officially recognized by the State Intellectual Property Office in 2019.

The establishment of a quality control system is key to protecting the reputation of geographical indications. Mong Cai City has set up a special management committee and formulated strict product standards, including specific regulations on the source of raw materials, processing technology and finished product quality. All companies using the geographical indication must be certified and undergo regular inspections. This system not only ensures the consistency of product quality, but also greatly enhances consumer trust.

Economic benefit analysis shows that after the geographical indication was registered, the market value of Mong Cai grilled squid increased significantly. The average selling price of the product increased by about 30%, while annual sales increased by nearly 50% in three years. More importantly, geographical indication protection has stimulated the innovation enthusiasm of local small and medium-sized enterprises. Many companies have developed new packaging and derivative products, such as ready-to-eat grilled squid and squid sauce, further expanding their market share. In addition, the geographical indication effect has also driven the development of local tourism, attracting more tourists to taste the authentic Mong Cai grilled squid.

For other small and medium-sized enterprises, the successful case of Mong Cai grilled squid provides valuable experience. First, enterprises should deeply explore the unique value of local specialty products and actively seek government support for geographical indication applications. Secondly, it is crucial to establish a strict quality control system, which is not only the key to successful application, but also a guarantee for maintaining the long-term value of geographical indications. Furthermore, enterprises should make full use of the brand effect brought by geographical indications, develop diversified products, and expand sales channels. Finally, geographical indication protection should be combined with modern marketing methods to promote products to a wider market through channels such as social media and e-commerce platforms.

The case of Mong Cai grilled squid clearly demonstrates how geographical indication protection can become a powerful tool to promote the upgrading of traditional industries. Through the organic combination of legal protection, quality control and brand promotion, the originally niche local specialty has successfully transformed into a high-quality brand with national influence. This experience is undoubtedly of great reference significance for many small and medium-sized enterprises in Vietnam that have characteristic products but lack effective protection and promotion.

7. Case 7: Trademark Opposition and Brand Protection

In the Vietnamese market, trademark protection is crucial to the brand value of a company. This case describes how a Chinese clothing company “Fashion Wind” successfully prevented a similar trademark “Fashion Wing” from being registered in Vietnam, providing valuable experience for small and medium-sized enterprises.

Case background: In early 2020, “Fashion Wing” discovered that a local Vietnamese company applied to register the “Fashion Wing” trademark, which was in the same category as its own clothing products. Although “Fashion Wing” has not yet registered its trademark in Vietnam, it has been selling on a small scale in the local market and plans to expand its business. Aware of the potential risk of brand confusion, “Fashion Wing” decided to file a trademark opposition.

Opposition procedure and evidence requirements: According to Vietnam’s Intellectual Property Law, any third party may file an opposition within five months from the date of trademark publication. Fashion Wind quickly hired a local intellectual property lawyer and collected the following key evidence: (1) trademark registration certificate in China; (2) sales records and invoices in the Vietnamese market; (3) brand promotional materials on social media; and (4) a questionnaire on the similarities between the two brands. The lawyer emphasized the similarities between the two trademarks in terms of appearance, pronunciation, and meaning, as well as the potential risk of consumer confusion.

Decision and appeal process: After 6 months of review, the National Office of Intellectual Property of Vietnam (NOIP) finally supported the objection of “时尚风” and rejected the registration application of “Fashion Wing”. However, the applicant of “Fashion Wing” was dissatisfied with the decision and appealed to the Appeal Committee of the Ministry of Science and Technology. The appeal process lasted for 3 months and finally upheld the original decision, confirming that there was indeed a possibility of confusion between the two trademarks.

Defensive registration strategies for brands entering the Vietnamese market: This case highlights the importance of defensive trademark registration. For small and medium-sized enterprises planning to enter the Vietnamese market, the experience of “Fashion Wind” provides several valuable suggestions: (1) Apply for trademark registration in Vietnam as early as possible, even if you have not yet officially entered the market; (2) Consider registering variations of the core trademark, such as different fonts or combinations; (3) Regularly monitor Vietnamese trademark announcements to detect potential infringements in a timely manner; (4) Keep all evidence of the brand’s use in Vietnam, including sales records, advertising materials, etc.; (5) Establish a brand awareness survey mechanism to collect consumer perception data.

This case clearly demonstrates the process and success factors of trademark opposition, while emphasizing the forward-looking strategy of brand protection. For small and medium-sized enterprises that hope to gain a foothold in the Vietnamese market, establishing a comprehensive trademark protection system is not only necessary for rights protection, but also the cornerstone of brand development. Through timely and effective actions, “Fashion Wind” not only protected its brand rights, but also paved the way for future business expansion in Vietnam.

8. Case 8: Intellectual Property Licensing and Technology Transfer

This case focuses on a remarkable successful case of technology introduction in Vietnam’s manufacturing industry. VN-Tech Company in Hanoi, a medium-sized enterprise specializing in the production of smart home appliances, successfully introduced advanced energy management technology from Japan through intellectual property licensing, achieving significant technological upgrades and market breakthroughs.

Case background: At the beginning of 2021, VN-Tech was faced with the bottleneck of high energy consumption and low intelligence of its products. The company’s decision-makers realized that in order to stand out in Vietnam’s increasingly competitive home appliance market, they must introduce international advanced technologies. After extensive research, VN-Tech locked on the smart energy management system of Japan’s Eco-Smart, which can reduce the energy consumption of home appliances by 30% while improving user experience.

Analysis of the core terms of the license agreement: The technology license agreement signed between VN-Tech and Eco-Smart contains several key terms. First, the scope of the license is limited to the Vietnamese market for a period of 5 years, which gives VN-Tech enough time to digest and absorb the technology. Second, the agreement adopts a tiered licensing fee structure, with low initial fees and increasing as VN-Tech’s sales grow, which reduces VN-Tech’s initial financial pressure. Third, the agreement includes technical training terms, and Eco-Smart promises to provide one year of technical support to ensure that VN-Tech can fully master the core technology. Finally, the agreement also includes sharing terms for improved technology to encourage VN-Tech to carry out localized innovation.

Intellectual property issues in the process of technology localization: During the process of technology introduction, VN-Tech encountered several thorny intellectual property issues. The first was the ownership of technological improvements. VN-Tech made a number of improvements to the original technology to adapt to the needs of the Vietnamese market, and the ownership of the patents for these improvements caused a dispute with Eco-Smart. After negotiation, the two parties agreed to jointly apply for patents for the improved technology. The second was the issue of trademark use. VN-Tech wanted to use the words “Eco-Smart Technology Support” on its products, which involved the right to use the Eco-Smart trademark, which was eventually resolved by adding an annex to the license agreement.

How SMEs can achieve technological upgrading through intellectual property licensing: The success of VN-Tech provides valuable experience for Vietnamese SMEs. First, enterprises should clarify their own technological needs and choose technologies that are truly suitable for them to introduce. Secondly, when signing a licensing agreement, it is necessary to pay attention to balancing the current burden and long-term benefits, and flexible payment methods can be considered. Third, it is necessary to attach importance to technology absorption and localized innovation, which can not only better adapt to the local market, but also take the initiative in future technology negotiations. Finally, SMEs should establish their own intellectual property management system, including patent analysis, technology improvement tracking, etc., to lay the foundation for future independent innovation.

Through this case, we can see that intellectual property licensing is not only a way to introduce technology, but also an effective way for small and medium-sized enterprises to achieve rapid technological upgrading. In an emerging market like Vietnam, making good use of intellectual property licensing strategies can help companies gain an advantage in the fierce market competition. CopyRetryClaude can make mistakes. Please double-check responses.

9. Case 9: Cross-border e-commerce and online rights protection

With the booming development of e-commerce in Vietnam, more and more Chinese brands are choosing to enter the Vietnamese market through cross-border e-commerce platforms. However, this also brings new intellectual property challenges. This case tells the story of how a Chinese SME successfully protected its trademark rights on a mainstream e-commerce platform in Vietnam.

Case background: A well-known Chinese cosmetics brand “Mei Lian” (pseudonym) officially entered the Vietnamese market in 2020 and opened official stores on major e-commerce platforms such as Shopee and Lazada. However, just three months later, “Mei Lian” found that a large number of counterfeit products were rampant on these platforms, seriously affecting the brand image and sales performance. These counterfeit products not only used the exact same trademark as “Mei Lian”, but also copied its product packaging design, making it difficult for consumers to distinguish the authenticity.

Online complaint process and evidence collection: Meilian’s Vietnamese legal counsel first suggested that the company collect detailed evidence of infringement. The company assigned a dedicated person to monitor major e-commerce platforms, screenshot and record all links, sales data and seller information of suspected infringing products. At the same time, the company also secretly purchased some counterfeit goods as physical evidence. After the evidence was fully prepared, Meilian submitted intellectual property infringement complaints to Shopee and Lazada at the same time. The complaint materials include: Meilian’s trademark registration certificate in Vietnam, authorization letter, screenshots of infringing products and photos of purchased physical samples.

Platform processing results and subsequent legal actions: Shopee and Lazada responded quickly to the complaint, removing most of the infringing products within 48 hours of receiving complete materials, and suspending several seller accounts suspected of infringement. However, some stubborn sellers quickly re-listed counterfeit products with new accounts. Faced with this situation, “Mei Lian” decided to take further legal action. The company filed a lawsuit with the People’s Court of Ho Chi Minh City, demanding that the largest infringing sellers immediately stop infringing and compensate for losses. After 6 months of trial, the court finally supported “Mei Lian”‘s lawsuit request and ordered the infringing party to compensate for economic losses of 5 billion VND (about 215,000 US dollars).

Cross-border e-commerce intellectual property protection strategy: Through this rights protection experience, “Mei Lian” summed up several valuable experiences: First, before entering the Vietnamese market, it is necessary to make good intellectual property layout such as trademark registration; second, establish a normalized market monitoring mechanism to promptly discover infringements; third, make good use of the intellectual property protection mechanism of the e-commerce platform and file complaints through formal channels; finally, for major infringements, do not fear litigation and safeguard rights and interests through legal means. In addition, “Mei Lian” has also strengthened cooperation with local e-commerce platforms in Vietnam, participated in brand certification projects organized by the platforms, increased the recognition of official stores, and reduced the living space of counterfeit goods from the source.

This case vividly demonstrates the intellectual property challenges faced by small and medium-sized enterprises in Vietnam’s cross-border e-commerce sector, and how to effectively protect their rights through online complaints and legal means. It emphasizes that in the digital economy era, companies need to establish a comprehensive intellectual property protection strategy in order to gain a foothold in the fiercely competitive Vietnamese e-commerce market.

10. Case 10: Customs filing of intellectual property rights and combating counterfeiting

In the Vietnamese market, the circulation of counterfeit goods has always been a problem that has troubled many companies, especially for small and medium-sized enterprises. This case describes how a Chinese small and medium-sized enterprise successfully seized a batch of infringing goods through the Vietnamese Customs intellectual property registration system, effectively protecting its own rights and interests.

Case background: Fengyue Outdoor, a Chinese small and medium-sized enterprise specializing in the production of high-end outdoor sports equipment, found a large number of counterfeit goods flooding the market after entering the Vietnamese market. The company decided to take active measures to combat counterfeiting through customs intellectual property registration. In the third month after completing the registration, the Vietnamese customs found counterfeit products suspected of infringing the trademark rights of Fengyue Outdoor during a routine inspection of a batch of goods imported from China.

Customs filing procedures and precautions: First, Fengyue Outdoor submitted an intellectual property filing application to the General Administration of Vietnam Customs, including company certification documents, intellectual property certificates, product photos and other materials. It is worth noting that all documents need to be translated into Vietnamese and notarized. During the filing process, the company paid special attention to the following points: ensuring that the product information provided is accurate and detailed, including possible import and export ports; regularly updating the filing information, especially when new product lines are launched; actively establishing communication channels with customs and providing training materials to help customs identify authenticity.

Seizure process and subsequent handling: After the customs found the suspicious goods, they immediately notified “Fengyue Outdoor”. The company quickly dispatched technical personnel to the scene to assist in identification. After confirming that they were infringing goods, the customs detained the entire batch of goods in accordance with the law. Subsequently, “Fengyue Outdoor” filed a lawsuit in court, demanding the destruction of the infringing goods and compensation for losses. While the legal procedures were ongoing, the company also cooperated with customs and law enforcement agencies to trace the source of the counterfeit goods and successfully destroyed a counterfeiting den.

How can SMEs effectively use customs to protect intellectual property rights: Through this case, we can summarize several suggestions for SMEs to refer to. First, we must fully realize the importance of customs intellectual property registration, which is a relatively low-cost but effective protection measure. Secondly, when preparing the registration materials, we must be as detailed and accurate as possible. Providing a guide to authenticity identification can greatly improve the efficiency of customs inspection. Furthermore, it is crucial to establish a good relationship with the customs. You can consider holding regular training sessions to improve the customs staff’s ability to identify products. Finally, once infringement is discovered, you must respond quickly, actively cooperate with the customs, and take legal action in a timely manner to protect your own rights and interests.

This case shows how SMEs can effectively combat counterfeiting through customs intellectual property protection mechanisms in the Vietnamese market. Although there may be challenges such as language barriers and complicated legal procedures in the process, as long as enterprises make full use of existing legal tools and take a proactive attitude, they can effectively protect their intellectual property rights and lay the foundation for healthy development in the Vietnamese market.

11. Comprehensive Analysis and Suggestions

Through in-depth analysis of the above cases, we can clearly see several important trends in Vietnam’s intellectual property protection. First, the Vietnamese government is constantly improving the intellectual property legal system, and law enforcement is also increasing year by year. This is reflected in the severe punishment of infringement by the court in the case, as well as the strong protection of the legitimate rights and interests of the right holder. Secondly, Vietnam is actively integrating into the international intellectual property protection system, which makes it easier for foreign companies to protect their rights in Vietnam. Furthermore, the intellectual property awareness of local Vietnamese companies is awakening. They are not only actively innovating, but also taking the initiative to use legal weapons to protect their own rights.

However, there are still some common misunderstandings among SMEs in terms of intellectual property management. The most prominent one is the belief that intellectual property protection is costly and only large enterprises need to pay attention to it. In fact, establishing an intellectual property protection awareness and system early can lay a solid foundation for the future development of enterprises. Another misunderstanding is to rely too much on passive defense and ignore the importance of active layout. Many enterprises only think of protecting their rights when they encounter infringement, but do not make strategic intellectual property layout in advance.

In addition, many companies neglect employee training and internal management, resulting in the inadvertent disclosure of trade secrets or infringement of the rights of others.

In response to these issues, we recommend that SMEs build a comprehensive intellectual property protection system. First, enterprises should establish an intellectual property management system, clarify the division of responsibilities, and conduct regular intellectual property audits. Second, they should formulate an intellectual property strategic plan and combine it with the overall development strategy of the enterprise. Third, enterprises should attach importance to the creation and accumulation of intellectual property rights, encourage employees to innovate, and promptly convert them into rights. At the same time, they should strengthen the construction of internal confidentiality systems to prevent the leakage of core technologies. Finally, enterprises should establish an intellectual property risk early warning mechanism, regularly monitor the market, and promptly discover and respond to potential infringements.

Balancing the cost and benefits of intellectual property protection is a major challenge facing small and medium-sized enterprises. We recommend that enterprises adopt a strategy of “focusing on protection and comprehensively deploying”. For core technologies and key markets, sufficient resources should be invested in all-round protection. For non-core areas, more economical protection methods can be adopted, such as trade secret protection. In addition, enterprises can make full use of government resources and the power of industry associations to reduce the cost of intellectual property protection. For example, they can participate in intellectual property training organized by the government and apply for intellectual property funding projects. Enterprises should also focus on the commercialization of intellectual property rights, and transform intellectual property rights into actual benefits through licensing, transfer, etc., so as to achieve a virtuous cycle of protection investment and return.

In general, in the Vietnamese market, intellectual property protection has become an important part of corporate competitiveness. SMEs should change their mindset and regard intellectual property management as a strategic tool for corporate development rather than just a legal defense measure. Through systematic and forward-looking intellectual property management, SMEs can gain greater development space in Vietnam, a market full of opportunities and challenges.

12. Conclusion

In Vietnam, a land full of opportunities, intellectual property protection is crucial to the development of small and medium-sized enterprises. Through the ten typical cases analyzed in this article, we can clearly see that both local enterprises and foreign investors are facing challenges and opportunities in intellectual property protection. These cases not only demonstrate the continuous improvement of Vietnam’s intellectual property legal system, but also highlight the necessity for enterprises to actively protect their own rights and interests.

For small and medium-sized enterprises, intellectual property rights are often the basis of their core competitiveness. In the Vietnamese market, a well-protected brand, an innovative technology patent, or a unique product design may be the key to a company’s success. Intellectual property rights are not only a defensive legal tool, but also a strategic asset for companies to expand their markets and enhance their value. In the increasingly competitive Vietnamese manufacturing sector, the strategic use of intellectual property rights can create significant market advantages and economic benefits for small and medium-sized enterprises.

However, intellectual property protection is by no means a one-time thing. It requires continuous investment and active actions by enterprises. We encourage all small and medium-sized enterprises operating in Vietnam or planning to enter the Vietnamese market to establish a strong awareness of intellectual property rights. This includes timely registration of trademarks and patent applications, establishment of internal intellectual property management systems, and decisive legal action when infringements are discovered. Active protection of rights can not only protect the interests of enterprises themselves, but also create a good innovation environment for the entire industry.

The Vietnamese government is constantly improving the intellectual property legal system and strengthening law enforcement, which provides increasingly powerful legal protection for enterprises. Enterprises should make full use of this favorable environment and actively cooperate with government departments and legal professionals to jointly maintain a fair and competitive market order. By actively participating in intellectual property protection practices, enterprises can not only protect their own rights and interests, but also promote the healthy development of Vietnam’s overall innovation ecosystem.

Looking to the future, we believe that those SMEs that attach importance to intellectual property protection and are good at using intellectual property strategies will occupy a more advantageous position in the Vietnamese market. Intellectual property protection and innovation complement each other. Through continuous innovation, enterprises have accumulated valuable intellectual property assets; and effective intellectual property protection provides a strong driving force for the continuous innovation of enterprises. In this virtuous circle, SMEs will gain a continuous source of development momentum and make important contributions to the prosperity of Vietnam’s economy.

Let us work together to create a business environment that respects knowledge and protects innovation. In Vietnam, a land full of hope, every small and medium-sized enterprise that values ​​intellectual property rights has the opportunity to shine brightly. The future has come, and let us sail towards a more brilliant tomorrow under the protection of intellectual property rights.