Scenario: “LUA”, a fashion brand from a Nam Dinh garment company, is being knocked off by a Bangkok workshop selling fakes across Chatuchak market and Thai e-commerce platforms. The company wants to sweep both offline and online channels in Thailand. Which channel works best – and how does it differ from Vietnam?
1. Thailand: a specialised IP court and economic crime police
Thailand has the Central Intellectual Property and International Trade Court (Central IP & IT Court) – a specialised court for IP disputes, delivering more consistent adjudication than general courts. On the administrative/criminal side, the Economic Crime Division (ECD) of the Royal Thai Police investigates large-scale counterfeiting and IP crime. In practice, anti-counterfeit sweeps at famous markets (Chatuchak, MBK) are typically run by the ECD together with the DIP and right holders. For online fakes, right holders can complain to platforms and report to the ECD.
2. Vietnam: Market Surveillance as the administrative signature
In Vietnam, for fakes in traditional markets and online, the signature tool is Market Surveillance: inspections, seizure of goods, and administrative fines under Decree 99/2013/ND-CP (industrial property; amended by Decree 186/2026, effective 15 July 2026) and Decree 341/2025/ND-CP (copyright; effective 15 February 2026, replacing Decree 131/2013). For e-commerce platforms, the Law on E-commerce 122/2025/QH15 and Decree 248/2026/ND-CP oblige platforms to remove and prevent re-upload (notice-and-stay-down). Large, organised cases go criminal under Article 226 of the 2015 Penal Code (amended 2017). Vietnamese courts have no specialised IP court like Thailand’s – IP suits go before general people’s courts.
3. Comparison for the “LUA” case: sweeping markets and platforms
For offline Chatuchak: in Thailand, coordinating with the ECD for raids is the most effective channel – prepare certificates, genuine/fake comparison samples and interpreters. In Vietnam, the equivalent is a Market Surveillance inspection campaign. For online platforms: both countries offer complaint mechanisms – Thailand via platforms and the ECD, Vietnam via platforms (notice-and-stay-down under Decree 248/2026) and Market Surveillance. The biggest difference: Thailand has a specialised IP court for civil damages suits – more consistent IP adjudication; Vietnam has a dense, fast, cheap administrative apparatus but general courts. Run both in parallel: administrative/criminal sweeps to cut supply plus a civil suit at the specialised court for damages and deterrence.
Frequently asked questions
Who do I contact to sweep fakes at Chatuchak market?
Through Thai counsel, coordinate with the Economic Crime Division (ECD) and the DIP, with full protection certificates, genuine-vs-fake comparison samples and a seller-identification plan. Sweeps are typically organised as campaigns.
Does Thailand’s specialised IP court adjudicate differently?
Yes – more specialised: judges dedicated to IP and information technology, with more stable procedures and case law than general courts. An advantage when pursuing large civil damages claims.
How are fakes removed from Thai platforms?
Direct complaints to the platform with protection certificates are fastest; organised networks can also be reported to the ECD. In Vietnam, the notice-and-stay-down mechanism under Decree 248/2026 obliges platforms not only to remove but to block re-uploads.
This article is pending review by the QA Council before publication.
This article has been quality-reviewed by the FLAW AI Legal Council