This is not only a peak period for enforcement but also a requirement to raise the standards of intellectual property enforcement.
Correctly identifying violations to improve enforcement effectiveness
In daily life, a handbag bearing a counterfeit logo, imitation packaging, a product with a false indication of origin, or goods of unknown provenance are often collectively referred to by consumers as counterfeit goods. However, the law does not treat all violations in the same way. There are counterfeit goods in terms of quality, functionality, or composition; counterfeit labels, packaging, indications of origin, and provenance; counterfeit stamps, labels, and packaging; and intellectual property counterfeits. There are also goods that infringe industrial property rights but are not necessarily counterfeit trademark goods.
This distinction determines how the state protects the market. For example, when a product is counterfeit in terms of quality or functionality, the key issues concern safety, standards, consumer health, and commercial order. When a product bears a counterfeit trademark, the concern is consumer deception and the misappropriation of a brand’s reputation. If a product merely uses a similar sign that may cause confusion, enforcement agencies must make a more detailed assessment of the scope of rights, product categories, distribution channels, and the context in which the sign is used.
A recent example is the case involving Herbitech Technology Co., Ltd., headquartered in Ha Noi, which produced counterfeit dietary supplements on a particularly large scale over many years. Authorities prosecuted 19 defendants on charges related to the production and sale of counterfeit food products and additives, accounting violations, and money laundering. In such cases, the primary issue is counterfeit goods in terms of quality, functionality, and consumer safety rather than brand-related concerns.
In the field of intellectual property, goods with counterfeit trademark and counterfeit geographical indication are categories that require swift and sufficiently deterrent action. These typically involve goods, packaging, stamps, or labels bearing signs identical or confusingly similar to protected trademarks or geographical indications.
For example, Viet Hai One Member Limited Liability Company in Ho Chi Minh City unlawfully used the protected geographical indication “Phu Quoc” for its fish sauce products. This was a typical case of geographical indication infringement and deception regarding origin. Authorities inspected the company and seized 920 bottles of fish sauce for handling in accordance with the law. Such violations directly harm consumers by causing financial losses, misleading them about the origin and quality of goods, and eroding confidence in the market. For food, pharmaceuticals, cosmetics, essential consumer goods, and children’s products, the risks can extend far beyond economic damage.
In the field of intellectual property, goods with counterfeit trademark and counterfeit geographical indication are categories that require swift and sufficiently deterrent action. These typically involve goods, packaging, stamps, or labels bearing signs identical or confusingly similar to protected trademarks or geographical indications.
However, goods that infringe industrial property rights require careful assessment by authorities and should not automatically be classified as counterfeit goods. In practice, it may cause confusion when a sign is similar to a protected trademark, but this does not necessarily mean the goods are counterfeit. Such cases may involve authorised dealers, manufacturing, parallel imports, and disputes relating to contract, the scope of protection, or actual market use. Therefore, these cases should not automatically be regarded as counterfeit goods or referred for criminal prosecution.
The dispute between the “ASANZO” sign and the “ASANO” trademark several years ago is a notable example. The case demonstrated that a similar label sign should not automatically be regarded as “counterfeit goods”. Many cases should instead be treated as industrial property rights infringement disputes and assessed on the basis of the scope of protection, the related goods, actual use, and the likelihood of consumer confusion.
Therefore, an effective intellectual property enforcement system is not one that imposes severe penalties on every trademark dispute, but it should standardise the classification of violations in enforcement activities, thereby ensuring that the appropriate authorities — including market surveillance agencies, customs authorities, police, courts, and intellectual property agencies — exercise their respective jurisdictions correctly.
The effectiveness of intellectual property enforcement also depends on choosing the appropriate enforcement approach. Clear cases of organised, large-scale counterfeiting that affect health, safety, or involve cross-border activities should be dealt with quickly and firmly. More complex disputes involving confusingly similar signs, the scope of protection, dealerships, contract manufacturing, or parallel imports require careful evaluation. Cases causing substantial damage should make greater use of civil remedies to secure compensation and hold all parties in the distribution chain accountable, rather than relying solely on periodic inspection and enforcement campaigns.
Combating counterfeits in conjunction with protecting intellectual property assets
For localities, combating counterfeit goods should not be limited to market inspections. It should be integrated into broader efforts to protect local competitive assets, including key products, geographical indications, certification marks, collective marks, OCOP products, raw material regions, and the reputation of producer communities.
In fact, many signature products, such as Ngoc Linh ginseng and Khanh Hoa bird’s nest products, have taken years to build consumer trust. However, a few cases of origin fraud, imitation packaging, or misuse of geographical names online can quickly damage their market reputation. The consequences affect not only businesses but also producers, distributors, the tourism sector, and the reputation of localities themselves.
For this reason, intellectual property rights should not be considered only as registration procedures but as a development governance tool. Localities should build enforcement databases for key products, including protection certificates, authorised users, authentic product samples, signs of counterfeit goods, legitimate packaging, distribution systems, official sales channels, and consumer feedback. Rights holders should proactively provide information, while the state should establish support mechanisms for small businesses, cooperatives, geographical indication holders, and OCOP product owners, together with rapid coordination mechanisms among enforcement agencies, specialised authorities, and local governments.
As trading activities increasingly move to digital platforms, such governance requirements have become even more urgent. Without proper governance, geographical indications, collective trademarks, and OCOP products can easily be misused, counterfeited, or impersonated in both traditional markets and e-commerce environments.
Combating counterfeit goods in cyberspace cannot stop at sanctioning the final seller. Authorities must trace the entire chain to gather evidence on the source of goods, warehouses, advertising activities, delivery networks, financial transactions, and related accounts. In this context, the Law on Intellectual Property must operate in a coordinated manner with laws governing e-commerce, data management, and cybersecurity.
Counterfeit goods may disappear one day on e-commerce platforms, social media and livestream channels and reappear the next under a different name. Therefore, combating counterfeit goods in cyberspace cannot stop at sanctioning the final seller. Authorities must trace the entire chain to gather evidence on the source of goods, warehouses, advertising activities, delivery networks, financial transactions, and related accounts. In this context, the Law on Intellectual Property must operate in a coordinated manner with laws governing e-commerce, data management, and cybersecurity.
An economy that that aims to develop based on quality, branding, and innovation cannot allow the erosion of market confidence due to counterfeit goods, rights infringements, nor the misappropriation of reputation.
Raising standards for intellectual property enforcement is not simply a matter of handling more cases or imposing harsher penalties but it means correctly identifying the nature of violations, applying appropriate enforcement measures, and protecting the competitive assets of businesses and localities in a timely manner.
