Using the Customs recordal system

Managing IP is part of Legal Benchmarking Limited, 1-2 Paris Gardens, London, SE1 8ND

Copyright © Legal Benchmarking Limited and its affiliated companies 2026

Accessibility | Terms of Use | Privacy Policy | Modern Slavery Statement

Cookies Settings

Using the Customs recordal system

Customs recordal is one of the legal measures that IP owners can employ for enforcement at the borders. The Customs Law provides that IP can be recorded with local Customs offices or the General Customs Department in Hanoi. Recordal is not compulsory, but is highly recommended for rights holders facing IP infringement in Vietnam. The relevant laws and regulations governing customs recordal are the Customs Law 2001, amended in 2005, Decree No 154/ND-CP dated December 15 2005, detailing the provisions of the Customs Law and the Regulations on Handling Requests for Border Control Measures Over Imported and Exported Goods promulgated by Decision no 916/QD-TCHQ dated March 31 2008.

SEE ALSO: IN-HOUSE: DATA SHARING FOR CRIMINAL AND CUSTOMS ENFORCEMENT A CHALLENGE

The types of IP that can be recorded include copyright, patents and trade marks. An application must be filed with customs authorities to request the monitoring and detection of goods that infringe IP, accompanied by a detailed description of infringing goods and of features distinguishing genuine and infringing goods, certified copies of IP registration certificates, and other information, such as suspected sources of infringing goods, modes of export and import, packing methods, prices, as well as suspected exporters/importers or distributors of infringing goods.

Within thirty days of the receipt of all relevant documents, the authorities shall issue notification on acceptance of the application dossier. The recordal of IP is valid for one year from the date of filing of the application and is renewable many times within the IP protection term upon the request of the applicant.

There are generally two scenarios for customs enforcement proceedings if IP owners suspect that infringing goods are about to be exported or imported. IP owners may file a request to customs offices to temporarily suspend Customs procedures. In addition, the IP owner must provide security equal to 20% of the value of the suspected goods, or D20 million ($1,100) if the value is unknown, to cover potential losses of the consignee or consignor or costs incurred by Customs for warehousing or storage of the infringing goods.

In the other scenario, if the Customs authorities suspect that imported or exported goods infringe IP, they will temporarily suspend Customs procedures and immediately notify the IP owner. The IP owner must then, within three working days of receiving the notice from Customs authorities, confirm the goods in question are infringing and file a request to detain the goods. The IP holder must also provide security, as described above, to the authorities in this situation. Within ten working days after temporarily suspending Customs procedures, the Customs authorities will decide: whether or not the goods infringe IP; whether to detain or destroy the goods; and whether or not to fine the infringer. The applicant can also file a law suit to seek damages from the infringer.

le-thi-hong-tuyen.jpg

 

nguyen-thi-phi-nga.jpg

Le Thi Hong Tuyen and Nguyen Thi Phi Nga


Tilleke & Gibbins Consultants Limited

HAREC Building, 4th Floor

4A Lang Ha Street

Ba Dinh District

Hanoi, Vietnam

Tel: +84 4 3772 6688

Fax: +84 4 3772 5568

thuylien.v@tillekeandgibbins.com

www.tillekeandgibbins.com

more from across site and SHARED ros bottom lb

More from across our site

Eight years after its launch, members of the Australian patent firm’s Singapore office explain its growth strategy over the past year
Lawyers at Bowmans Kenya discuss the digital blind spots posed by the transition from physical ledgers to cloud databases and digital co-development models
The Powell Gilbert co-founder discusses the confidence required to launch a firm, building an enduring patent litigation practice and why developing the next generation has changed her measure of success
Cabinet M Oproiu’s Raluca Vasilescu explains why AI is changing what clients expect from patent attorneys, where the technology is overhyped and what the next generation will need to do differently
As clients demand more flexible fees and AI-driven efficiencies, IP firms are rethinking pricing without abandoning the value of their work
HG Law was formed largely by ex Fish & Neave lawyers who left after the latter's merger with Ropes & Gray; now those experiences are shaping its latest combination
David Rodrigues and Evan Lazerowitz – attorneys at Robinson & Cole – offer practical guidance on the steps a business might consider to preserve and maximise IP value before entering financial distress or insolvency
Daniel Law CEO Alicia Daniel-Shores may have stepped into a family business, but she has spent two decades building her own vision around technology and litigation
Law firms don't particularly like saying no to clients. Perhaps they should get better at it
The office, which has a relatively new patent litigation team as well as a wider ‘soft’ IP offering, would remain independent if the rejection is rubberstamped
Gift this article