Cross-Jurisdictional IP Litigation in Southeast Asia: A Comparative Study of Ho Chi Minh City and Kuala Lumpur as Emerging Enforcement Hubs

Introduction : A sportswear brand worldwide finds counterfeit products are being sold in Vietnam and Malaysia concurrently. Although the wrong may be the same, attack may be undertaken in various legal ways depending on the jurisdiction where attack is desired. In an age of global supply chains, digital commerce, and trans-border brand expansion, the success of IP litigation depends not only on whether any IP rights exist, but on how effective are the institutions charged with enforcing them?

With Southeast Asia’s growing significance as a manufacturing, technological and consumer centre, IP claims are now going beyond national boundaries. When businesses are running across jurisdictions, trademark infringement, copyright piracy, patent disputes, counterfeiting and technology misappropriation are often a problem. Thus the question of which forum to use for enforcement has become a strategic one for rights holders.

Vietnam and Malaysia are two key economies in the region which are developing at a very fast pace. Both nations have implemented a massive reform programme to enhance the strength of their IP regimes, following rising foreign investment, involvement in international trade agreements and a developing domestic innovation landscape. In these jurisdictions the key commercial hubs are Ho Chi Minh City and Kuala Lumpur and both jurisdictions have a significant share of high-value IP disputes.

The blog does comparative analysis on the judicial structure, procedural efficiency, enforceability of rights, access for foreign litigants and growing importance of dispute resolution mechanisms in both jurisdictions, namely Ho Chi Minh City and Kuala Lumpur.

The evolution of the Intellectual Property (IP) Ecosystem in Vietnam and Malaysia.

The past 20 years have seen a dramatic change in Vietnam’s IP environment. Expansion of the country’s participation in international value chains, especially in manufacturing, electronics, textiles and IT industries, has driven a need for enhanced intellectual property rights protection. With the growth of foreign investment, expectations also grew of legal certainty and enforcement mechanisms. With the growth of foreign investment, so did the expectations for legal certainty and enforcement mechanisms. In comparison, the intellectual property regime in Malaysia has a longer history in the development of its institutions. Malaysia’s geographic location as a regional trade and commercial center has always been the reason why the country has been keen to ensure a legal environment that is conducive to innovation, investment and international trade. The country has a fairly developed IP regime, with specialised judicial structures and institutions for enforcement.. Although both jurisdictions have statutory protection for trademarks, patents, copyrights, industrial designs and geographical indications, there are some differences between them when it comes to rights holders enforcing their rights by litigation.

International commitments and domestic reforms.

As both Vietnam and Malaysia are parties to the WTO, then they must comply with the terms and conditions set out in the TRIPS Agreement. Furthermore, both Vietnam and Malaysia are bound by the provisions of the respective intellectual property regimes applicable to their international obligations through the WIPO.

There were also some amendments made recently in the field of intellectual property in Vietnam. The amendments to the Law on Intellectual Property that took place in 2022 are the largest ones in the history since the introduction of the original act in 2005. Changes occurring within Malaysia’s intellectual property protection regime include; the introduction of the Trade Marks Act 2019 which was enacted to align Malaysia’s own national law to international standards

established by the Madrid Protocol; as well as harmonizing Malaysian laws further with the CPTPP and EVFTA agreements (which both include provisions governing the treatment of Intellectual Property). The Trade Mark Act is another step forward towards Malaysia’s commitment to improving access to legal means to protect intellectual property.

But the same enforcement outcomes are not guaranteed with the observance of the international standards. Institutions for the implementation and enforcement of IP rights are the key to the effectiveness of IP protection.

The structure and specialisation of the judiciary.

A key difference between the two jurisdictions is the distinction of judicial specialisation.

Generally, intellectual property disputes in Vietnam will be submitted to the civil and economic court system. While judges have more and more to deal with IP issues, the number of IP courts is still limited. In such cases, where the patent is technically complex or involves sophisticated technology-related issues, expert evidence and administrative opinions may be a significant part of the dispute.

The lack of specialized judicial institutions sometimes leads to a lack of uniformity in addressing complicated IP issues. The judicial system is in developmental stage although reforms are continuing to enhance judiciary capacity.

In Malaysia, it is a more specialised method. The intellectual property arena is dealt with through the use of dedicated intellectual property divisions in the High Court system and judges build their own special expertise in trademark, patent, copyright and commercial matters. This institutional specialization plays a key role in consistency, predictability and efficiency in adjudication.

In cases of high value intellectual property disputes, judicial predictability can be as crucial as legal protection for multinationals. Kuala Lumpur has an institutional edge in this regard.

Litigation timelines and procedural efficiency.

An issue of procedural efficiency is relevant for rights holders who are seeking a remedy to be effective. Vietnam has a long history of litigation with procedures, formalities, evidentiary requirements and sometimes the involvement of the administrative authorities. For complex cases, expert evaluations, document translation and legalisation of foreign documents might be required, as well as consulting specialised agencies. These can lead to a longer dispute resolution time.

Consequently, many rights holders continue to take advantage of administrative enforcement even in the more simple trademark and counterfeiting infringements, instead of resorting to civil litigation.

The litigation process is simpler, in general, in Malaysia. The judicial expertise, electronic filing and judicial case management in handling disputes are relatively efficient. The set procedure is more predictable, and so is the process and litigating.

In the business world, reduced litigations will mean reduced costs and better protection against ongoing infringement.

The effectiveness of interim relief and enforcement.

Obtaining interim relief is critical for Intellectual Property Rights Cases (IPR) in Vietnam. While the Vietnamese law provides for provisional measures and preliminary injunctions, courts will generally not provide such relief unless they are convinced that the applicant has submitted convincing evidence and they will generally require the applicant to post a security deposit. The protections for preventing abuse can slow down the enforcement of IPR cases timely.

With Malaysia’s established jurisprudence regarding interlocutory injunctions, courts, in general, will grant urgent interim relief if the applicant can establish a prima facie case, if irreparable harm will occur, and if the applicant meets the balance of convenience test. Thus, Malaysia is amenable to quickly affording applicants with an interim remedy, which enhances the utility of IP rights.

The ease with which interim remedies can be obtained will significantly affect where the rights holder selects the forum to bring their case if there is continued infringement.

Significant judicial developments and emerging jurisprudence.

Reliability and consistency in interpreting the law is frequently indicative of the maturity of an IP regime. Malaysia has an existing well-established intellectual property case law.  In McCurry Restaurant (KL) Sdn Bhd v McDonald’s Corporation. Trademark confusion and the safeguarding of commercially valuable trademarked brands were among the issues that were at the heart of what the Federal Court of Australia examined. The ruling demonstrated that the judiciary is willing to explore some of the more complex issues surrounding brand identity and consumer perception. Similarly, Yong Sze Fun & Anor v Syarikat Zamani Hj Tamin Sdn Bhd had a significant role in passing-off law and protection of commercial good will.

Vietnam’s recorded IP jurisprudence is still rather limited. Traditionally, rights holders have preferred administrative enforcement options to court-based ones. In the last few years, however,

there has been a greater involvement of judges in IP cases, especially in fields related to pharmaceuticals, technology, luxury goods and consumer products.

This is an indication of a shift in enforcement culture toward a more “litigation mindset”.

Access for Foreign Litigants.

Oftentimes, the cross-border intellectual property disputes are between foreign companies who are trying to defend their rights against a local infringer.

Vietnam allows foreign parties to commence intellectual property actions. Malaysia is fairly an environment that is friendly to foreign companies. The country’s common law traditions and the fact that English is widely used in commercial practice and the principles of international business are understood enhance the predictability of the foreign litigant.

As a result, Malaysia is seen as a relatively pro-friendly IP forum for multinational companies.

Considerations in recognition and enforcement.

Winning a favorable judgment is just one part of being successful in enforcement. But ultimately the effectiveness of the judgment will be determined by its implementation.

The rule of law is well developed in Malaysia, which has efficient enforcement institutions and a judiciary that is considered to be commercially sophisticated. Court orders are generally enforced well, and this helps to build rights holders’ trust.

Vietnam has done a lot of work to improve the ability to enforce. But problems can still occur when there is a decentralized network of infringers, or when enforcement involves multiple authorities. Certainty in enforcement continues to be a key consideration for foreign rights holders in favour of Kuala Lumpur as a litigation venue.

The Emerging Challenge of Digital and Online Infringement

The evolution of E-commerce and digital marketplaces has changed the landscape of IP enforcement. The unauthorised streaming, software piracy, social media infringements and counterfeiting of goods now move beyond territorial borders.

In the modern era of IP disputes, in which many battles go to the internet, the ability to enforce IP rights is no longer just quantifiable by traditional litigation measures. Courts and enforcement authorities need to be able to act quickly to address criminal activity on the Internet that can travel through different jurisdictions at once.

Vietnam and Malaysia have acknowledged the issue and have taken steps to improve digital enforcement with legislative measures. However, its implementation continues to be an ongoing issue of concern for rights holders.

Arbitration as an alternative to litigation.

The roles of alternative dispute resolution processes are also becoming more significant in IP cases, especially from licensing, technology transfer, franchising and contract disputes.

In the last few years Vietnam has advanced arbitration, including by establishing the Vietnam International Arbitration Centre (VIAC). Although IP arbitration is not widely used, its use is likely to increase in the face of complex business deals.

Malaysia has emerged as a regional arbitration hub by setting up the Asian International Arbitration Centre (AIAC). Its legal environment flexible to arbitration and judicial assistance to arbitral proceedings has made Kuala Lumpur an even better choice for dispute resolution.

Mediation can also help prevent the loss of commercial relationships for the efficient resolution of disputes.

Conclusion

The comparison between Ho Chi Minh City and Kuala Lumpur is in fact a reflection on the overall development of intellectual property enforcement in southeast Asia. Although both jurisdictions have made significant reforms to enhance the protection of IP, there are differences in the enforcement systems as applied in practice.

In Malaysia today, litigation is more sophisticated with specialized court judges, efficient court procedures, as well as sound interim relief and a well-established alternative dispute resolution system. The following features help achieve more predictability and legal clarity for multinational rights holders.

However, Vietnam should not be considered as a developing counterpart. The significant changes adopted in 2022 in its Intellectual Property Law and the growing judicial involvement in IP issues are a sign of a jurisdiction in constant evolution. Vietnam’s attractiveness as a forum for

IP enforcement will further grow as it develops its legal environment to comply with international conventions and improves institutional capacity.

The key question for businesses doing business across Southeast Asia is no longer which Southeast Asia countries have the strongest protections now, but how the potential new enforcement hubs will influence the future of the Southeast Asia IP landscape. As this landscape continues to change, comparative advantages at a jurisdictional level, like between Ho Chi Minh City and Kuala Lumpur, will continue to be important in effective cross-border IP strategy.

Author:-Sanjana Meghani, in case of any queries please contact/write back to us at support@ipandlegalfilings.com or   IP & Legal Filing.

Endnotes

1. Agreement on Trade-Related Aspects of Intellectual Property Rights (TRIPS Agreement), Annex 1C to the Marrakesh Agreement Establishing the World Trade Organization, available at: https://www.wto.org/english/docs_e/legal_e/27-trips.pdf (last accessed June 2026).
2. World Intellectual Property Organization (WIPO), WIPO Lex Database, containing the intellectual property legislation of Vietnam and Malaysia, available at: https://www.wipo.int/wipolex/en/ (last accessed June 2026).
3. Law on Intellectual Property of Vietnam (Law No. 50/2005/QH11), as amended by Law No. 07/2022/QH15, available through WIPO Lex at: https://www.wipo.int/wipolex/en/text/589454 (last accessed June 2026).
4. Trade Marks Act 2019 (Act 815), Malaysia, Intellectual Property Corporation of Malaysia (MyIPO), available at: https://www.myipo.gov.my (last accessed June 2026).
5. McCurry Restaurant (KL) Sdn Bhd v. McDonald’s Corporation, [2009] 3 MLJ 774 (Federal Court of Malaysia).
6. Yong Sze Fun & Anor v. Syarikat Zamani Hj Tamin Sdn Bhd, [2012] 1 MLJ 585 (Federal Court of Malaysia).
7. Vietnam International Arbitration Centre (VIAC), Rules of Arbitration and Institutional Information, available at: https://www.viac.vn (last accessed June 2026).
8. Asian International Arbitration Centre (AIAC), AIAC Arbitration Rules and International Dispute Resolution Framework, available at: https://www.aiac.world (last accessed June 2026).