KENFOX IP & Law Office > Articles posted by KENFOX IP (Page 28)

Competitive Products

Licensee undertakes not to manufacture, use, sell or otherwise deal in any products competitive in price and quality with the Licensed Product without the previous consent in writing of Company. Licensee represents and Company admits, however, that at the present time it is, through an affiliated company, (…), involved in the manufacture and distribution in (…) of (…) and (…), which are not in direct competition with those of Company....

Continue reading


All disputes, controversies, or different which may arise between the parties hereto, out of or in relation to or in connection with this Agreement, or for the breach thereof, shall be finally settled by arbitration pursuant to the Japan-American Arbitration Agreement, of September 16, 1952, by which each party hereto is bound....

Continue reading

Grant of license

Company hereby grants to Licensee, during the life of this Agreement, an exclusive, non-transferable and non-assignable license to manufacture, use and sell the Licensed Product under the Patents, Know-How and other technical furnished by Company hereunder in Territory. Licensee shall manufacture the Licensed Product only at the factory in (…) owned or controlled by Licensee and approved in advance by Company....

Continue reading


Example 2-1: Definitions For the purpose of this Agreement, the words and terms listed below shall have the following meaning: a) The term "Licensed Product" shall mean the finished (…) composite and any other composites containing the chemical compound covered by the Patents, Know-How (these are hereinafter defined) and/or other technical technical furnished by Company, which are manufactured by Licensee. b) The term "Territory" shall mean (…). c) The term "Patents" shall mean those patents and patent applications covering Licensed Product or any process of making it which Company owns or controls, the application date of which is on or before the Effective Date...

Continue reading

Typical competition restriction cases in Vietnam

Abusing dominant position in the market: Case 1: In 2007 THP filed a complaint with the Vietnam Competition Authority (VCA) against Vietnam Brewery Limited (VBL) – a producer of Tiger and Heineken beer. THP alleged that VBL had abused its dominant position in the premium beer market in some big cities in Vietnam to deter new competitors. The VCA’s investigation mainly focused on identifying the relevant market, determining if VBL had a dominant position in that market and collecting evidence to prove the exclusive dealing conduct. The relevant market in this case was identified by the VCA as the beer market...

Continue reading

Legal news in January 2018 in Vietnam

1. Provisions on limits for issuing covered warrants

On  18  January  2018,  the  State  Securities  Commission  issued  Decision No.72/QD-UBCK,  promulgating  the  Rules/Guidelines  for  offering  and hedging with covered warrants.

Accordingly,  the  regulation  sets  maximum  limits  for  warrants,  which  have been issued or registered to be issued, excluding those that have been canceled or have expired, according to the available capital of each issuer. In particular:

(a)       0% for issuers with a liquid capital ratio of 180% to 250%;

(b)      5% for issuers with a liquid capital ratio of 250% to 300%;

(c)       10% for an issuer with a liquid capital ratio of 300% to 450%;

(d)      15%  of  the  Issuing  Institution  has  a  liquid  capital  ratio  of  450%  to 600%;

(e)       20% to the issuing organization with a liquid capital ratio of more than 600%.

The liquid capital ratio to be used for determination of limits is the continuous minimum of 6 latest months prior to the date of filing registration dossier for offering warrants.

This Decision takes effect from the date of signing.