Justice for “Foellie”: How KENFOX Invalidated a Bad-Faith Filing & Halted a Retaliatory Campaign of IP Abuse?

Download

1. Snapshot of the Case

Client: Laorganic Co., Ltd. (Republic of Korea), true owner of the Foellie brand and logo

Adverse party: Lưu Ngọc Anh / La Pharma Pharmaceutical Co., Ltd. (Vietnam)

Matter: Disputes over the trademark “Foellie” (intimate perfume / cosmetics brand)

Duration: ~4 years of dispute tactics and platform takedowns

Core risk: The Vietnamese side used a trademark registration to (i) block the real owner from the market, (ii) shut down the official sales network, and (iii) demand a forced “buy-back” of the brand at an excessive price.

Result:

• On 15 September 2025, the Intellectual Property Office of Vietnam (IPVN) issued Decision No. 205432/QĐ-SHTT annulling Trademark Registration No. 525787 for “FOELLIE” in the name of Lưu Ngọc Anh.
• TikTok Vietnam formally reversed platform-level takedowns and reinstated Laorganic’s official channels and content on 25 August 2025.
• The adverse party’s IP leverage collapsed: Their Trademark Registration Certificate is no longer valid, their takedown pressure is discredited, and their “official distributor” narrative is no longer sustainable.

2. Why the Case Was Legally Difficult?

(1) This was not a routine dispute – it was a real-time commercial crisis

This dispute was far more complex than a traditional trademark opposition. When the infringer’s registration issued, the client’s business in Vietnam was immediately strangled: e-commerce channels were disabled, authorized distributors were intimidated, and sales pipelines were frozen. The matter required not only legal precision, but crisis-level response and market rescue. Success did not merely preserve rights on paper – it restored the client’s ability to operate and sell in Vietnam.

(2) A textbook case of trademark hijacking and IP-driven extortion

The Vietnamese filer executed a multi-front bad-faith strategy:

• Secured the “FOELLIE” trademark in Vietnam
• Marketed themselves as the “official” Foellie source
• Embedded the mark across all consumer touchpoints to simulate legitimacy
• Then used the registration as a weapon to:
  • issue threatening demand letters to authorized distributors
  • trigger TikTok/Shopee/Lazada takedowns of legitimate sales channels
  • summon sellers before enforcement bodies
  • demand an excessive “buy-back” price for the mark

This was not accidental overlap – it was a calculated attempt to co-opt brand identity, collapse legitimate distribution, and extort the rightful owner.

(3) Procedurally difficult: First-to-file optics favored the infringer

Vietnam follows first-to-file principles. On paper, the infringer held a valid registration, and Laorganic’s opposition had already been refused by the Trademark Examination Center. At a glance, the infringer looked like the “rightful” owner – a position the infringer aggressively leveraged to mislead platforms, authorities, and the market.

(4) Platform suppression – every day meant lost revenue and credibility

Major platforms initially accepted the infringer’s takedown requests, resulting in:

• removal of official brand stores
• deletion of content and accumulated social proof
• blocked access to customers and sales channels

This was not theoretical damage — it was real-time erosion of brand trust and revenue.

(5) Administrative harassment and regulatory noise

The infringer weaponized government channels by pushing authorities to question legitimate distributors. This created compliance pressure, reputational uncertainty, and operational disruption — a classic “bad-faith regulatory pressure” tactic seen in Southeast Asia.

6) Evidence complexity – online-only infringement with hidden inventory

Inventory was concealed and sales were platform-based, complicating enforcement. Traditional raid-and-seizure tactics were ineffective. We had to pivot to:

• digital-forensics evidence
• copyright certification and expert opinions
• platform compliance advocacy
• regulatory agency escalation

This demanded cross-disciplinary enforcement skills, not just trademark doctrine.

In summary, this case combined: (i) a first-to-file trademark hijack, (ii) aggressive platform takedowns, (iii) government-agency pressure, (iv) digital evidence hurdles, (v) bad-faith commercial conduct

It presented the most hostile environment a legitimate foreign brand can face in Vietnam – and required rapid, coordinated, and legally sophisticated action to neutralize the threat, restore commercial capability, and dismantle the bad-faith registration.

3. KENFOX Strategy and Actions

Overview of the “First-to-File” Principle and the Burden of Proving Bad-Faith Filing in Vietnam

In Vietnamese IP practice, the “first-to-file” principle (i.e. the first applicant obtains the registration) is not merely a procedural rule. In practice, it operates as an almost absolute legal shield for whoever files first – even where that filer is not the true owner of the mark.

The “FOELLIE” matter illustrates how powerful, and how difficult to overcome, this shield can be. The trademark application for “FOELLIE”, filed on 13 July 2020, was not filed in the name of a “trading entity”. It was filed in the name of a “private individual”: “Lưu Ngọc Anh”. Procedurally, that fact matters. When the applicant is a “company”, it is often possible to trace corporate registrations, tax filings, distribution channels, and business models to build an evidentiary picture of intent to appropriate. When the applicant is an “individual”, those commercial footprints are far less visible – if not completely inaccessible – to both the rights holder and the authorities. In practical terms: individualizing the filing also anonymizes responsibility.

For that reason, in the ordinary course it is extremely difficult – if not close to impossible – to persuade the Vietnamese authorities to characterize an individual applicant like Lưu Ngọc Anh as having acted in “bad faith” based solely on the argument that “Laorganic (Republic of Korea) had already introduced the Foellie products into Vietnam and they were widely available, therefore the applicant must have known of the mark”.

In reality, Vietnam’s Intellectual Property Office (IPVN) takes a cautious, conservative, and often restrictive view of this type of allegation when it is raised in an opposition or cancellation request relying on Article 74.2(g) of the Law on Intellectual Property (i.e. likelihood of confusion with a mark that has already been “widely used” in Vietnam). Evidence that an unregistered mark has been “widely used” in Vietnam is generally treated as only scratching the surface of the bad-faith inquiry. Standing alone, it is not considered sufficient to displace the first filer’s priority.

To establish “bad faith,” Vietnamese practice typically demands more. The true owner must prove that the applicant “knew or had reason to know” of the prior mark before filing. This is the decisive bottleneck. It is also the point at which most foreign brand owners lose.

If all you can say is: “We were already selling in Vietnam. Our brand already had goodwill. There is no way the applicant did not know”. That line of argument will almost certainly be dismissed as speculative, subjective, and evidentially weak – essentially an attempt to overturn the first-to-file rule with inference and sentiment rather than hard proof.

In Vietnamese practice, the safest and most “comfortable” basis on which an examiner will conclude that an applicant acted in bad faith is the existence of a clear commercial relationship between the parties before the filing date – for example, a distribution agreement, sales agreement, authorization, or agency arrangement. If such documents exist, the examiner is far more willing to state that the applicant acted dishonestly or without legitimate entitlement. If such documents do not exist, the fallback assertion (“You must have known my brand because it was already well known here”) is routinely characterized as conjectural and is often rejected, particularly in oppositions or invalidation actions grounded in Article 74.2(g).

Here, that posed a structural problem: Laorganic had never entered into any distribution agreement with Lưu Ngọc Anh. In other words, the conventional evidentiary pathway – proving “you knew my mark” by producing a prior commercial relationship – was closed.

That left one critical question, and it was not theoretical. It was existential to the case: How do you prove that Lưu Ngọc Anh in fact knew (or unquestionably had reason to know) of Laorganic’s FOELLIE brand before 13 July 2020 – without a distribution contract, without an agency agreement, and without any formal channel linking the parties?

That is the point at which KENFOX intervened and fundamentally altered the litigation posture.

[1] We refused to accept the simplistic argument that “The other side filed first, therefore they win”.

Rather than repeating the assertion that “Laorganic had already used the “Foellie” mark in Vietnam, therefore Lưu Ngọc Anh – the trademark applicant, could not have been unaware of it” we constructed an evidentiary record on a different footing:

• Laorganic is the true and legitimate owner of the “Foellie” brand internationally.
• The “” (“Foellie”) logo is an applied art work that has been registered for copyright protection in Vietnam and is owned by Laorganic.
• Lưu Ngọc Anh (together with the related business entity) not only “had reason to know” of the “Foellie” mark, but in fact commercially exploited the “Foellie” brand – marketing and offering it as if it were authorized genuine product – prior to and during the filing process. In other words: this was not a coincidence in naming. It was a deliberate brand appropriation model.

[2] On-the-Ground and Online Investigation Linking “Lưu Ngọc Anh” Directly to the Commercial Exploitation of “Foellie”

• The KENFOX team conducted a multi-layered investigation. We traced the physical address and declared contact numbers associated with Lưu Ngọc Anh, and we systematically reviewed the advertising and sale of “Foellie” products across Vietnamese e-commerce channels and online sales platforms. Through this process, we identified an entity named “La Pharma Pharmaceutical Company” (“La Pharma”) that was actively marketing, promoting, and selling “Foellie” products in Vietnam.
• Initially, Laorganic confirmed that “Foellie” products had been supplied to multiple resale partners and sales channels, which meant it was not immediately possible to conclude whether La Pharma had ever been directly supplied. A further complication arose: La Pharma did not operate a publicly accessible physical retail location. Its activities were conducted via websites and online sales only, making it difficult to “catch” the activity in a traditional physical raid scenario.
• We did not stop there. We expanded our review of La Pharma’s online infrastructure and discovered that La Pharma was operating two satellite websites whose domain names themselves incorporated the entirety of Laorganic’s “Foellie” mark (Republic of Korea). At that point, the evidentiary path began to clarify. We examined archived and nested content on these two websites and made several critical findings. In its marketing materials, La Pharma made express statements such as:
  “Foellie is a famous product from Korea”; “Foellie Inner Perfume is a leading premium intimate fragrance brand in Korea. Foellie intimate perfume is exported to many countries around the world such as Japan, the United States, France, Southeast Asian countries including Vietnam…”; “Foellie intimate perfume is a famous product of the Foellie brand from Korea… Although it is an extremely famous product of this high-end Korean brand, the design is very simple yet elegant and luxurious… This is an extremely well-known product of the premium Foellie brand in Korea”. These statements are evidentiary in nature. They amount to an admission by the seller that (i) the product originates in Korea, (ii) the brand enjoys established foreign reputation, and (iii) that reputation is being leveraged commercially in Vietnam.

• At that point we posed the strategic question: What is the relationship between La Pharma and Lưu Ngọc Anh – the individual who filed the “FOELLIE” trademark application in Vietnam? We continued our investigation and uncovered the decisive link: Lưu Ngọc Anh is identified as the “Director” of La Pharma.
• In other words, the individual applicant for “FOELLIE” in Vietnam simultaneously controls the business entity that is marketing and selling “Foellie” products in Vietnam while representing those products to consumers as genuine Korean-origin goods.

This destroys any suggestion that the applicant “did not know” “had no reason to know”, or “coincidentally conceived” the identical mark. It is precisely the missing element that most cases cannot produce in Vietnam: Direct evidence that the filer knew – or unquestionably had reason to know – of the prior brand before filing.

[3] Securing a Notarial Record/Bailiff Certification through the Bailiff’s Office – Freezing Evidence Before the Counterparty Could Destroy It

• As soon as we identified the structure of the infringement, we did not wait. We instructed a Hanoi Bailiff’s Office to prepare an official “Bailiff’s Certification” / “Notarial Record” capturing the full contents of the two websites operated by La Pharma / Lưu Ngọc Anh. The reason was purely strategic and entirely practical: With a single click, all statements such as “Foellie is a famous brand from Korea”, “we distribute genuine Foellie products”, together with the associated images and sales promotions, could be deleted from the internet.
• Our assessment proved accurate. After the IPVN issued its first Notice in response to our request for cancellation (Request No. ĐN4-2025-00078 dated 25 February 2025), the content relating to “Foellie” was wiped from those websites by Lưu Ngọc Anh. However, by that point the “Bailiff Certification” had already been executed. It had formally preserved, authenticated, and timestamped the online evidence before deletion.
• This allowed us to submit into the case record evidence with probative weight that could not be credibly denied: namely, that Lưu Ngọc Anh had been using the “Foellie” mark of Laorganic in commerce in Vietnam, promoting it, and presenting it to consumers as genuine Korean-origin product – during and around the filing period.
• In other words, we did not ask the authority to infer “bad faith” from market perception. We produced a notarized evidentiary trail, tied to specific sources, which directly links the applicant to the commercial exploitation of our client’s brand

[4] Copyright Registration and Infringement Assessment: Forcing the Dispute Out of the “It’s Just a Trademark” Narrative and Onto a Battlefield the Other Side Did Not Anticipate – Copyright

At this stage, the dispute was no longer about who filed first. It was about a different question entirely: Who is the lawful owner of the work “”?

Instead of limiting the confrontation to the Law on Industrial Property (i.e. trademarks) – a field structurally shielded by the “first-to-file” principle – we opened a parallel line of attack under copyright law. That parallel track is particularly dangerous for an appropriator for three reasons: (i) Copyright protection is an independent legal regime; (ii) Protection arises from the act of creation itself and does not depend on securing a prior registration certificate in order to exist; and (iii) It has its own enforcement channels, which operate regardless of whether the counterparty is holding a trademark registration certificate.

Three decisive steps – and one surgical counterstrike:

• We advised Laorganic to register copyright in Vietnam over the “Foellie” logo, characterizing it as an “applied art work”. This did more than place an ownership stamp on the logo: It established the logo as a creative work recognized by Vietnamese law as a protected asset, separate and independent from any trademark rights.
• We then secured evidence in a manner consistent with litigation standards, not mere narrative. Rather than saying “the other side is selling our products”, we purchased “Foellie” products directly from La Pharma / Lưu Ngọc Anh via their telephone sales channel. We obtained the physical goods, the packaging, the applied labels. In other words: The infringing material was in our custody, not just on a screenshot.
• We submitted the full evidentiary package – including the seized products – to the Expertise Centre of Copyright and Related Rights (ECCR), and formally requested an Expert Assessment Conclusion as to whether La Pharma / Lưu Ngọc Anh’s use of the “Foellie” logo in Vietnam constituted unauthorised reproduction and copyright infringement of Laorganic’s work.

The Assessment Conclusion issued by the ECCR: Copyright infringement was confirmed.

This Assessment Conclusion is strategically significant. It is not merely technical.

For many years in Vietnam, registering copyright in a logo has been treated – even by enforcement bodies – as cosmetic. It is often viewed as something you frame and show, not something you can actually enforce. Administrative enforcement authorities have traditionally been reluctant to pursue logo misuse as a copyright violation because they are more accustomed to handling trademarks, and less comfortable treating an “applied art work” as an infringed authored work.

We disrupted that inertia.

By compelling an expert conclusion that the logo had been unlawfully copied, we converted what is often dismissed as a symbolic copyright certificate into a live enforcement weapon: a legal basis strong enough to allege copyright infringement, to request administrative action, and to apply immediate commercial pressure to the infringing party – even while that party was still holding a trademark registration certificate.

In short, we did not allow this dispute to be dismissed as “just a trademark issue.” We demonstrated that the opposing party was, in fact, selling our client’s copyrighted work. And once the narrative shifts from “these marks look similar” to “you are reproducing a protected work that belongs to our client,” the first-filer’s defensive position is no longer untouchable.

[5] Triggering the Administrative Enforcement Mechanism / Market Surveillance Authority to Create an Official Enforcement Record

In September 2023, we filed a Petition for Administrative Action with Hanoi Market Surveillance Team No. 1 (the Market Surveillance Authority). Even though the infringing goods were not seized immediately, this step produced three legal effects that are often overlooked:

• It created a formal, government-filed record that La Pharma / Lưu Ngọc Anh were being complained of for unauthorized use of “Foellie”.
• It notified the authorities that the Vietnamese party’s use of “Foellie” was not a lawful right but constituted copyright infringement / misappropriation of brand identity.
• It established a paper trail demonstrating that Laorganic acted promptly and in good faith to protect its rights while Lưu Ngọc Anh continued to escalate – thereby strengthening later arguments on damages and on the applicant’s bad-faith intent.

We did not use the administrative channel merely to “inspect and seize counterfeits”. We used it to lay down an official enforcement record – a foundation that would directly support the subsequent invalidation and damages claims

[6] Counterattack on E-Commerce Platforms to Restore the Authorized Sales Channels

This was a commercially sensitive escalation. After obtaining the “FOELLIE” trademark registration certificate, Lưu Ngọc Anh relied on that certificate to demand that TikTok, Shopee, and Lazada remove the official / authorized sales channels (i.e. channels authorized by Laorganic) while preserving his own. In effect, the trademark certificate was deployed as a tool to manufacture exclusive control over the “FOELLIE” brand on Vietnamese e-commerce platforms.

We did not respond with a generic plea of “this is commercially unfair”. Instead, we filed formal Complaints with the platforms, advancing the following positions:

• The “FOELLIE” certificate held by Lưu Ngọc Anh was already the subject of a cancellation request and bore clear indicators of invalidity due to bad-faith filing.
• The “Foellie” logo is a copyrighted applied art work owned by Laorganic (Republic of Korea); the use of that logo by La Pharma (under the control of Lưu Ngọc Anh) constitutes copyright infringement.
• If the platform continued to remove Laorganic’s authorized channels while allowing the infringing channel to operate, the platform itself risked being characterized as facilitating unfair competition and enabling copyright infringement.

The practical result was immediate: On 25 August 2025, TikTok Vietnam reinstated the accounts and content of Laorganic’s authorized distributors and temporarily suspended takedown actions initiated by Lưu Ngọc Anh. This was not a merely symbolic outcome. It restored lawful sales channels, stemmed revenue loss, and arrested reputational damage to the client at the most commercially sensitive moment of the dispute.

[7] Striking at the Legal Core: Cancellation of the “FOELLIE” Trademark Registration Certificate

In parallel with the above strategic measures, we targeted the core legal instrument that the opposing party relied upon to exert market pressure – namely, the trademark registration certificate. On 15 September 2025, the IPVN issued a decision cancelling Trademark Registration Certificate No. 525787 for the mark “FOELLIE” in the name of Lưu Ngọc Anh, based on key provisions of Vietnam’s IP Law:

• Article 74.2(g): The mark was cancelled on the grounds of likelihood of confusion with a mark that had been extensively used earlier.
• Article 87.2: The applicant did not have legitimate entitlement to file the application (not a lawful right holder).
• Article 96: A protection title shall be cancelled where protection conditions are not satisfied or the registration was obtained in contravention of the law.

Importantly, our argument did not solely rely on Article 74.2(g), which is often attacked by applicants as “just speculation that I must have known their brand”. We advanced a second and more structurally powerful line of attack under Article 87: that Lưu Ngọc Anh / La Pharma had no right to file at all.

We established this by using the counterparty’s own public admissions. In commercial communications, La Pharma (under the control of Lưu Ngọc Anh) publicly represented itself as the distributor of genuine Korean-origin FOELLIE products, stating for example that: “Foellie is a famous perfume brand originating from Korea. The product is currently a highly sought-after fragrance line distributed by the company” and
“The product is exclusively distributed by Công ty TNHH Dược phẩm LA PHARMA [LA PHARMA Pharmaceutical Co., Ltd.]”.

Those statements were not casual marketing language for us – they were evidence. We invoked Article 92 of the Civil Procedure Code, which governs “facts and circumstances not required to be proven.” Under Article 92.2 of the Civil Procedure Code: “When a party admits or does not dispute facts, circumstances, documents, or evidence put forward by the other party, the other party is not required to prove those matters”.

In other words, where one party publicly asserts a fact, and the opposing party (here, Laorganic) does not contest it, that fact can be treated as established without further proof.

We used this procedural mechanism to argue: If you publicly claim to be the distributor of genuine FOELLIE products originating in Korea, you cannot then turn around and file to register the identical “FOELLIE” mark in your own personal name as if you were the brand owner. That position is legally inconsistent. It confirms that you are acting as a distributor – not as the proprietor of the mark – and thus you are not a legitimate applicant within the meaning of Article 87.

The IP Office accepted this reasoning. This is significant. It effectively broadened the interpretation of Article 87 beyond the narrow, traditional view that “only a written distribution agreement between the two parties can prove lack of entitlement to file.” Here, even in the absence of a formal signed distribution contract, the applicant’s own public statements were treated as binding admissions sufficient to establish lack of filing entitlement.

In short, we did not merely defend. We neutralized the weapon. By invalidating the registration certificate itself, we removed the very instrument the counterparty had been using to block our client’s commercial channels.

[8] Preparing the Post-Conflict Phase: Damages and Deterrence

Finally, we laid the groundwork for the post-enforcement phase. Relying on Article 198.5 of the Law on Intellectual Property of Vietnam – which provides that any party abusing procedures for the protection of IP rights and thereby causing damage to another may be liable for compensation – we structured a claim for damages against Lưu Ngọc Anh / La Pharma.

This stage serves two objectives:

• To seek compensation for lost revenue, reputational harm, and consequential damage arising from (i) forcing e-commerce platforms to remove Laorganic’s authorized sales channels, (ii) exerting pressure on state authorities, and (iii) using the “FOELLIE” trademark certificate as a tool to exclude our client from the market.
• To deliver a clear deterrent message: exploiting Vietnam’s trademark registration system as an instrument of brand extortion, or weaponizing procedural filings to shut out the true brand owner, does not merely result in loss of the registration certificate – it may also give rise to monetary liability.

4. Outcome / Impact

This was not a symbolic trademark victory – it represented the restoration of an entire commercial footprint in a market where distribution networks and digital presence are the lifeblood of business operations and investment viability in Vietnam.

• Market freedom restored – the chokehold ended: The bad-faith Vietnamese trademark registration for “FOELLIE” was annulled by IPVN, removing the core legal instrument used to block market entry and disrupt legitimate sales.
• Digital presence revived – immediate commercial recovery: TikTok Vietnam reinstated Laorganic’s official channels and suspended all takedown actions, re-opening revenue pipelines, restoring visibility, and rebuilding consumer confidence. Other platforms followed suit.
• Distribution chain secured: Authorized distributors and brand partners regained legitimacy and operational stability, ensuring uninterrupted product flow and protecting investments across the supply network.
• Legal authority over platform abuse established: By compelling a global platform to reverse enforcement based on legal filings and copyright rights – not negotiation – the case sets a procedural model for foreign brands facing platform suppression in Vietnam and Southeast Asia.
• Consumer trust and market integrity protected: Removal of the false “official” seller presence ended marketplace confusion in a sensitive personal-care sector, safeguarding brand reputation and consumer rights.
• Multi-regime enforcement validated: The victory confirms that copyright and trademark rights can operate in tandem in Vietnam – empowering rights-holders to defend brand assets even when a squatter holds a trademark certificate.
• Deterrent effect achieved: The squatter’s registration collapsed, their credibility evaporated, and they now face the prospect of compensation liability for abuse of IP procedures and regulatory harassment – a clear warning to future trademark hijackers.
• Bottom Line: We did not only win a legal argument. We re-opened a market, revived the client’s commercial presence, stabilized their distribution ecosystem, and demonstrated that weaponized trademark filings and platform manipulation can be dismantled in Vietnam — swiftly, lawfully, and decisively.

5. What This Case Proves About KENFOX?

This case did more than settle a trademark dispute – it showcased KENFOX’s ability to protect global brands in one of Asia’s most complex enforcement environments, where IP rights, platform dynamics, and real-world commerce collide.

• We convert “first-to-file” disadvantage into strategic victory: In a jurisdiction where many believe first-to-file is absolute, we invalidated a granted registration obtained in bad faith – swiftly, decisively, and with precedent value.
• We don’t just defend rights – we restore markets: Our win was measured in sales revived, channels reopened, and consumer trust regained – not in page-count orders. TikTok’s reinstatement proved commercial capability, not academic success.
• We master multi-regime enforcement: Trademark alone wasn’t enough. We executed a coordinated campaign across:
  • Copyright law
  • Administrative enforcement
  • IP examination and invalidation
  • Platform governance and compliance

Modern brand protection requires multi-front pressure. We delivered it.

• We make global platforms listen to law – not noise: Instead of filing tickets or pleading commercial fairness, we invoked legal authority to force a platform reversal and stop unfair takedowns. This is how cross-border e-commerce protection works now, and we lead it.
• We build evidence that survives scrutiny: Our copyright-anchored, bad-faith evidence record created an independent legal foundation even where timing favored the squatter. We don’t rely on hope – we build proof.
• We think beyond defense – we set up recovery: By invoking Article 198.5, we didn’t just stop the hijacker – we positioned for compensation and deterrence. Tactical wins matter; strategic accountability matters more.
• We protect revenue, not just registrations: Our job is not to “win arguments”. Our job is to keep brands selling, scaling, and free from extortion pressure in Vietnam. We kept the client’s commercial engine alive when every channel was under attack.
• We reinforce trust in Vietnam as an investable IP market: By defeating a sophisticated hijacking attempt, we strengthened market confidence that real brand owners – when properly represented – can win and thrive here.

In short, KENFOX doesn’t merely enforce IP – we rescue markets, dismantle hijackers, and turn Vietnam’s legal system into a shield and sword for legitimate global brands.

QUAN, Nguyen Vu | Partner, IP Attorney

PHAN, Do Thi | Special Counsel

HONG, Hoang Thi Tuyet | Senior Trademark Attorney

Related Articles:

• Successful Raid Against Trademark Infringement of LACTOMASON: A Significant Victory for KENFOX and Market Surveillance Team No. 1
• Handling intellectual property rights infringement in Vietnam: Which measures are effective?
• Assessing Intellectual Property Rights Infringement in Vietnam: Four Key Considerations
• Vietnamese People’s Court System and How it Works in Vietnam
• How to determine the jurisdiction of the court hearing IPR related cases in Vietnam?
• A trademark-based domain name dispute heard by Court in Vietnam. What should foreign businesses know?
• New product launch: How to keep your product design from being “stolen”?
• How to Report Trademark Infringement to Shopee E-commerce Website in Vietnam?
• Handling Trademark Infringement in Vietnam: 8 Key Considerations
• Handling IPR infringement under criminal route in Vietnam: Key takeaways
• ADMINISTRATIVE IPR ENFORCEMENT AUTHORITIES OF VIETNAM
• Genuine Goods, Trademark Infringement: The Rule One Proteins Victory in Vietnam