Raids on Counterfeit Manufacturing Premises in Vietnam: Coordinating With Market Surveillance and Police usually arises against the background where the mark owner has located the counterfeit factory, yet every action at points of sale proves useless because fresh stock keeps pumping out of this very site.
This article approaches raiding counterfeit production sites in the order a lawyer handles a real file: lock the legal basis in force on 20 October 2026, test that basis against the specific file, and only then turn to the sequence and risks of raiding counterfeit production sites.
The legal framework governing raiding counterfeit production sites
The enforcement system behind raiding counterfeit production sites comprises self-protection measures in Article 198, civil measures in Article 202 and border control measures in Articles 216 to 218 of the Law on Intellectual Property, backed by customs through the ten-day clearance suspension extendable by up to twenty days in Articles 73 and 76 of the Law on Customs 54/2014/QH13, and that system works only when raiding a counterfeit production site is a coordinated action between the mark owner and market surveillance and economic police forces under their statutory powers of inspection and seizure in administrative violation law, and the legal value of the raid turns on the inspection minutes, sealing, sampling and on-site appraisal of the goods One practice point to remember about raiding counterfeit production sites is that every document signed around the issue of to raid a counterfeit production site, which authorities must be coordinated with must be consistent with the particulars registered at the business and investment registries, because a single small discrepancy can stall the next step of raiding counterfeit production sites.
Article 226 of the Penal Code 100/2015/QH13 (as amended in 2017) criminalises infringement of industrial property rights on a commercial scale, and this criminal threshold is the red line that any analysis of raiding counterfeit production sites must sit beside because the mark owner has located the counterfeit factory, yet every action at points of sale proves useless because fresh stock keeps pumping out of this very site Testing against the issue of what must the trademark owner prepare before a raid (evidence, appraisal) shows that the line between internal work and registrable work in raiding counterfeit production sites is drawn by the original documents, so the company must lock its legal basis before signing any commitment binding towards a third party.
The Law on Intellectual Property No. 50/2005/QH11 (as amended in 2009, 2019, 2022 and by Law 131/2025/QH15) together with Decree 65/2023/ND-CP is the framework for establishing and enforcing rights in raiding counterfeit production sites, and within it the principle to hold is that raiding before the counterfeit samples are appraised and storage for seized goods is arranged forces the authorities to return detained goods for lack of grounds to hold them past the statutory period, and the factory simply relocates and restarts Seen from the registry’s side, the file for raiding counterfeit production sites is judged first on consistency, and the issue of during a raid, how are goods seized and sealed is where that consistency breaks most easily if the company does not self-review before filing.
Analysing the questions investors ask around raiding counterfeit production sites
The question of to raid a counterfeit production site, which authorities must be coordinated with sounds simple yet decides the true cost of raiding counterfeit production sites, because getting this point wrong forces the company back into amending registrations, re-finalising tax or renegotiating with partners when everything seemed done. On the question of what must the trademark owner prepare before a raid (evidence, appraisal), what the investor needs is a conclusion immediately applicable to raiding counterfeit production sites rather than a general principle, and that conclusion must rest on the original instruments in force, not on oral summaries passed between project teams.
Answering the question of during a raid, how are goods seized and sealed correctly starts from the company’s own registration documents in raiding counterfeit production sites, because the same question put to two different registration files receives two different procedural answers. The question of who bears the cost of organising a raid is where the hidden cost of raiding counterfeit production sites usually sits, because handling it superficially spawns another round of registration amendments and explanations that no project team budgeted for at the start.
Placing raiding counterfeit production sites beside a similar completed deal shows the decisive difference rarely lies in the parties’ will, but in whether the core handling principle, namely that raiding a counterfeit production site is a coordinated action between the mark owner and market surveillance and economic police forces under their statutory powers of inspection and seizure in administrative violation law, and the legal value of the raid turns on the inspection minutes, sealing, sampling and on-site appraisal of the goods, was respected or skipped from the start.
A safe implementation sequence for raiding counterfeit production sites
- Open raiding counterfeit production sites with a review session involving all three sides, legal, accounting and operations, because missing any one side means the plan gets rebuilt when that side finds its own problem.
- Lock the framework agreement for raiding counterfeit production sites before touching state procedures, allocating clearly who bears the cost and who bears obligations arising before and after the effective date, especially around the issue of what must the trademark owner prepare before a raid (evidence, appraisal).
- Run the registration part of raiding counterfeit production sites on a one-change-at-a-time principle, verifying the returned result after each step, instead of sending many changes at once and locking an early error into later steps.
- Check the cash flows of raiding counterfeit production sites separately: which account receives, which account pays, and which vouchers prove the flow’s validity before the tax authority and the bank, including the investment capital account where a foreign investor joins the flow.
- After raiding counterfeit production sites completes, run one post-completion review within a single reporting cycle to catch missed obligations, and record the execution lessons into the internal file for the next restructuring.
Risks to anticipate in raiding counterfeit production sites
The most distinctive risk of raiding counterfeit production sites lies in the following point. Raiding before the counterfeit samples are appraised and storage for seized goods is arranged forces the authorities to return detained goods for lack of grounds to hold them past the statutory period, and the factory simply relocates and restarts. The second risk of raiding counterfeit production sites rarely sits in the documents the parties sign with each other but in the state obligations running underneath in parallel, such as tax finalisation, the labour plan or licence adjustments, and it is that layer that returns as back-tax or penalties after raiding counterfeit production sites has closed. A third risk attached to raiding counterfeit production sites arises from the issue of what must the trademark owner prepare before a raid (evidence, appraisal): when the parties do not fix the handling in writing beforehand, each reads it in its own favour and the conflict erupts exactly when raiding counterfeit production sites no longer has a way back.
raiding counterfeit production sites does not end on the signing date or the date an amended certificate issues, but only when the last tax, labour and reporting duty arising from it has been closed with vouchers. The investor should therefore keep one accountable owner for raiding counterfeit production sites until that final closing point is confirmed, instead of disbanding the project team right after formal completion.
Frequently asked questions: raiding counterfeit production sites
To raid a counterfeit production site, which authorities must be coordinated with?
For the question of to raid a counterfeit production site, which authorities must be coordinated with, the safe principle for raiding counterfeit production sites is not to commit towards a third party before the legal basis and the handling plan are locked in writing, because an oral commitment is worth almost nothing once a dispute arises. More specifically, raiding a counterfeit production site is a coordinated action between the mark owner and market surveillance and economic police forces under their statutory powers of inspection and seizure in administrative violation law, and the legal value of the raid turns on the inspection minutes, sealing, sampling and on-site appraisal of the goods.
What must the trademark owner prepare before a raid (evidence, appraisal)?
On the question of what must the trademark owner prepare before a raid (evidence, appraisal), the first thing to clarify for raiding counterfeit production sites is whether it belongs to the basis layer, the file layer or the sequence layer, because each layer needs a different kind of evidence to answer and carries a different risk if answered wrongly. More specifically, the mark owner has located the counterfeit factory, yet every action at points of sale proves useless because fresh stock keeps pumping out of this very site.
During a raid, how are goods seized and sealed?
The question of during a raid, how are goods seized and sealed is usually asked by clients at the end of preparing raiding counterfeit production sites, yet experience shows it should be answered at the beginning, because its answer changes how every remaining step is arranged. More specifically, raiding before the counterfeit samples are appraised and storage for seized goods is arranged forces the authorities to return detained goods for lack of grounds to hold them past the statutory period, and the factory simply relocates and restarts.
Who bears the cost of organising a raid?
Answering directly the question of who bears the cost of organising a raid: in raiding counterfeit production sites, the first point to lock is the legal basis and original file of this very case, because conclusions drawn from another deal are reference only and cannot replace checking the instruments currently in force. More specifically, procedurally, the company must close out the whole file chain of raiding counterfeit production sites, from the written agreement and registration with the competent authority to document retention, because a single missing link is enough to have the entire plan sent back to the start.
This article has been quality-reviewed by the FLAW AI Legal Council