Raising the standards of intellectual property enforcement.

Prime Minister's Directive No. 38/CD-TTg dated May 5, 2026, on focusing on decisively implementing solutions to combat, prevent, and handle intellectual property infringement, requires the vigorous implementation of solutions to combat, prevent, and handle intellectual property infringement.

Authorities inspect a fashion store selling counterfeit international brand products in Tay Tuu ward, Hanoi. (Photo: Tuan Ngoc)

This is not just a peak period for enforcement, but also a requirement to raise the standards of intellectual property enforcement.

Accurately identifying violations is crucial for improving enforcement effectiveness.

In everyday life, a handbag with a fake logo, counterfeit packaging, a product with an incorrect origin, or a shipment of goods of unknown origin... are often collectively referred to by consumers as counterfeit goods. However, the law does not treat all violations in the same way, because there are counterfeit goods in terms of function, quality, and composition; counterfeit goods in terms of labels, packaging, origin, and provenance; counterfeit stamps, labels, and packaging; and counterfeit intellectual property. And there are also goods that infringe on industrial property rights but are not necessarily counterfeit trademarks.

That distinction will determine how the State protects the market. For example, if a product is counterfeit in terms of quality or function, the central issues are safety, standards, consumer health, and commercial order. If a product bears a counterfeit trademark, the concern is the act of deceiving consumers and undermining the brand's reputation. If a product only uses a similar mark causing confusion, enforcement agencies must conduct a more thorough assessment of the scope of rights, product category, distribution channel, and context of use.

For example, recently, in the case of Herbitech Technology Co., Ltd. (headquartered in Hanoi ) producing counterfeit functional foods on an exceptionally large scale over many years, authorities prosecuted 19 defendants for crimes related to the production and sale of counterfeit food, food additives, accounting violations, and money laundering. With this group of offenses, the focus is primarily on the counterfeit goods, their quality, effectiveness, and consumer safety, rather than on brand name.

In intellectual property, counterfeit goods bearing trademarks and geographical indications are a group that requires prompt and sufficiently deterrent action. These are often cases where goods, packaging, stamps, and labels bear markings that are identical or so similar that they are difficult to distinguish from protected trademarks or geographical indications.

For example, Viet Hai One-Member Limited Liability Company (Ho Chi Minh City) illegally used the Phu Quoc geographical indication for its fish sauce product, a typical case of infringement of protected geographical indications and deception regarding origin. Authorities inspected and temporarily seized 920 bottles of fish sauce for processing according to regulations. This type of violation directly harms consumers, causing them to lose money, be deceived about the origin and quality of goods, and erode trust in the market. With food, pharmaceuticals, cosmetics, essential consumer goods, or children's products, the risks can extend beyond economic losses.

In intellectual property, counterfeit goods bearing trademarks and geographical indications are a group that requires prompt and sufficiently deterrent action. These are often cases where goods, packaging, stamps, and labels bear markings that are identical or so similar that they are difficult to distinguish from protected trademarks or geographical indications.

However, goods infringing on industrial property rights require careful assessment by authorities, and should not be hastily concluded as counterfeit. In reality, a similarity to a protected trademark may cause confusion, but it is not always a case of counterfeiting, as it could involve intermediaries, subcontracting, parallel importation, contract disputes, the scope of protection, or actual market use. Therefore, these cases should not be automatically considered counterfeit or prosecuted criminally.

For example, the dispute between the "ASANZO" mark and the "ASANO" trademark many years ago was adjudicated, demonstrating that a mark similar to a trademark should not be called "counterfeiting." Many cases should be considered as industrial property infringement disputes and require comparison of the scope of protection, related goods, actual use, and potential for confusion.

Therefore, a good intellectual property enforcement system is not about severely punishing every trademark dispute, but rather about standardizing the classification of infringements in enforcement, thereby correctly determining the jurisdiction of agencies such as market management, customs, police, courts, and specialized intellectual property agencies.

The effectiveness of intellectual property enforcement also depends on choosing the appropriate approach. Clearly counterfeit goods, those that are organized, large-scale, affect health or safety, or cross borders, require swift and decisive action. Complex disputes concerning confusing similarities, scope of protection, agency, processing, or parallel importation need careful assessment. Cases causing significant damage require expanding the role of civil mechanisms to compensate for damages and hold accountable links in the distribution chain, rather than relying solely on peak inspection and enforcement campaigns.

Combating counterfeiting is linked to protecting intellectual property.

For localities, combating counterfeit goods is not just a task of market inspection, but must be linked to a strategy of protecting the competitive assets of the locality itself, such as: key products, geographical indications, certification marks, collective marks, OCOP products, raw material areas, and the reputation of the production community.

In reality, many specialty products like Ngoc Linh ginseng or Khanh Hoa bird's nest have taken years to build consumer trust, but just a few cases of counterfeit origin, imitation packaging, or exploitation of place names spreading online can quickly damage market reputation. Not only do businesses suffer losses, but producers, distributors, the tourism industry, and the reputation of the locality are also affected.

Therefore, intellectual property rights should not be viewed merely as registration procedures, but rather as a tool for development management. Local authorities need to build enforcement databases for key products, including protection certificates, authorized users, genuine product samples, counterfeit identification marks, legal packaging, distribution systems, official stores, and consumer feedback. Rights holders need to proactively provide information, while the State should develop mechanisms to support small businesses, cooperatives, geographical indication entities, and OCOP products, along with mechanisms for rapid coordination between enforcement forces, specialized agencies, and local authorities.

With the increasing shift of trading activities to the digital environment, this management requirement becomes even more urgent. Without proper management, geographical indications, collective trademarks, or OCOP products are easily abused, counterfeited, or impersonated in both traditional and e-commerce markets.

Combating counterfeit goods online cannot stop at prosecuting the last seller; it requires tracing the entire chain to gather evidence: the source of goods, warehouses, advertising activities, delivery, cash flow, and related accounts. Here, intellectual property law needs to be implemented in conjunction with e-commerce laws and regulations on data and cybersecurity.

Combating counterfeit goods on e-commerce platforms, social media, and livestreams is challenging because counterfeit goods can disappear in a day, only to reappear under a different name. Therefore, combating counterfeiting in cyberspace cannot stop at prosecuting the final seller; it requires tracing the entire chain to gather evidence: the source of goods, warehouses, advertising activities, delivery, cash flow, and related accounts. In this context, intellectual property law needs to be implemented in conjunction with e-commerce laws and regulations on data and cybersecurity.

An economy that aims to develop based on quality, brand, and innovation cannot allow counterfeit goods, intellectual property infringement, and misappropriation of reputation to erode market trust.

Raising the standards of intellectual property enforcement is not just about handling more cases or imposing harsher penalties, but about correctly identifying the nature of the infringement, choosing appropriate handling methods, and promptly protecting the competitive values ​​of businesses and localities.

Lawyer LE QUANG VINH

Director of Bross & Partners Intellectual Property Company

Source: https://nhandan.vn/nang-chuan-thuc-thi-so-huu-tri-tue-post961559.html