You are using an outdated browser and your browsing experience will not be optimal. Please update to the latest version of Microsoft Edge, Google Chrome or Mozilla Firefox. Install Microsoft Edge

July 25, 2025

Major Legal Changes Impacting Vietnam’s IP Regime: 2025 Legislative Updates

Subscribe to Updates
Managing Intellectual Property

Over the first half of 2025, the government of Vietnam has implemented a comprehensive suite of legislative reforms that significantly impact the country’s intellectual property (IP) framework. These amendments, most of which took effect on 1 July 2025, span the criminal, civil, administrative, and judicial sectors, and are part of a broader initiative to modernize Vietnam’s legal infrastructure, strengthen enforcement mechanisms, and harmonize domestic regulations with international standards.

A summary of the key legislative changes and their potential implications for IP protection and enforcement across Vietnam is provided below.

Criminal Code: Stricter penalties

Under the 2025 amendments to Vietnam’s Criminal Code, penalties for offenses involving the manufacturing and trading of counterfeit goods have been significantly escalated. Individuals convicted of such violations now face fines ranging from VND 200 million to VND 2 billion (approximately USD 7,700 to USD 77,000; up from VND 100 million to VND 1 billion). For corporate entities, the penalties are even more severe, with fines ranging from VND 2 billion to VND 40 billion (roughly USD 77,000 to USD 1.54 million; up from VND 1 billion to VND 20 billion). These heightened penalties reflect the government’s intensified efforts to deter counterfeit-related crimes and protect consumer rights.

Law on Handling Administrative Violations: Extended statute of limitations and application of electronic procedure

The statute of limitations for addressing administrative violations in the IP sector is still two years. However, in cases where such violations are referred by procedural authorities, this period is extended by one year. The time taken by these authorities to process the case is now included within the overall limitation period.

In addition, the Law on Handling Administrative Violations facilitates the use of electronic procedures, provided that the necessary infrastructure, technical systems, and information conditions are in place. Specifically, enforcement authorities are now permitted to deliver decisions, records, and related documents to violators through digital means such as email, online platforms, and SMS. The adoption of these technologies is expected to improve procedural efficiency and streamline administrative workflows.

Law on Organization of People’s Courts: Specialized courts and jurisdiction

The 2025 amendments called for the establishment of specialized courts at both provincial and regional levels, including dedicated divisions for IP and technology transfer disputes. Pursuant to Resolution No. 81/2025/UBTVQH15, two specialized IP courts have been instituted – one in Hanoi and the other in Ho Chi Minh City. The Hanoi IP Court will exercise first-instance jurisdiction over IP disputes arising in 20 northern and central provinces and cities, while the Ho Chi Minh City IP Court will oversee cases from the remaining 14 provinces and cities nationwide. Appeals from these specialized IP courts will be adjudicated by the relevant provincial-level courts.

Provincial-level courts will continue to exercise first-instance jurisdiction over IP disputes that were filed and formally accepted prior to 1 July 2025. In contrast, IP cases that were initiated and accepted by district-level courts before this date will be transferred to one of the two newly established specialized IP courts.

Additionally, Resolution No. 01/2025/NQ-HDTP by the Council of Judges of the Supreme People’s Court sets out guidance for managing pending cases and delineates authority among court tiers.

Law on Inspection: Inspectorate levels simplified

Inspectorates previously operating under ministries, departments and sectoral agencies, such as those affiliated with the Ministry of Science and Technology, the Ministry of Culture, Sports, and Tourism, or city or provincial-level departments of science and technology, have been officially dissolved. Under the amended Law on Inspection, the inspection framework has been streamlined into two core levels: the Government Inspectorate and provincial inspectorates. However, as of the law’s effective date, 1 July 2025, there was still a lack of implementing guidelines, which are essential for translating the law’s provisions into practical enforcement and ensuring procedural clarity.

Other Key Developments

Trademark-infringing company names: Under Decree No. 168/2025/ND-CP, the business registration framework has been streamlined to accelerate the handling of company names that infringe trademarks. The review period by authorities has been significantly reduced from 10 days to just 3 days, and businesses found to be infringing must now complete the name change procedure within 60 days or face administrative penalties. This reform empowers IP rights holders to combat brand misappropriation more swiftly and effectively.

Targeting e-commerce platforms: Regulations under Decree No. 117/2025/ND-CP, in addition to tightening tax management, mandate that e-commerce traders provide complete and verifiable personal identification or tax numbers. Platforms are required to furnish this data upon request by competent authorities, thereby enhancing the efficiency of investigation and enforcement procedures against online IP infringements.

Defining and handling unsafe drugs: Circular No. 30/2025/TT-BYT from the Ministry of Health introduces a definition of unsafe pharmaceuticals. This includes new provisions for drugs suspected of being counterfeit, substandard, or of dubious origin, along with clear reporting mechanisms for unsafe drug products and protocols for investigating and penalizing entities involved in their distribution.

IP violations removed from advertising law: The provision on advertisements that violate IP regulations is abolished from the revised Law on Advertising. According to the opinions of National Assembly members, the provision of separate regulations was deemed unnecessary, as all acts of infringing IP rights are already prohibited under the IP Law.

Final Thoughts

Vietnam’s 2025 legal reforms constitute a strategic leap toward modernized IP enforcement, and represent a bold and strategic recalibration of the nation’s IP enforcement regime. With the introduction of the specialized IP courts, stricter penalties, digitized workflows, and streamlined inspection processes, the IP landscape is set to become more transparent, accessible, and robustly deterrent. These developments underscore Vietnam’s commitment to strengthening its IP regime in line with international best practices and its obligations under global trade agreements.

This article first appeared in Managing Intellectual Property.

Related Professionals

Practices

Intellectual Property

Location

RELATED INSIGHTS​ 

August 6, 2026
Introduction: A Trademark Paradox in Sustainable Packaging Walk into any Thai supermarket, and the label-free water bottle is no longer a novelty. Thailand’s packaging market, valued at approximately USD 15.68 billion in 2025, is shifting toward minimalist, plastic-light designs as ESG pressures reshape how brands present their products. The country generated roughly 5.68 million tons of plastic waste in 2021, with a recycling rate of only 19 percent, and regulators are now considering rules that would allow label-free bottled water relying on embossing, laser printing, or QR codes instead of wrap-around labels. As packaging itself becomes the brand identifier, a paradox emerges: designs built to say the least often struggle hardest for protection under Thai intellectual property law. The Trademark Barrier: When Shape Is Not Enough Section 7, paragraph 2(10) of the Thai Trademark Act deems a shape distinctive only if it is not the natural form of the goods, is not necessary to achieve a technical result, and does not add value to the goods. The Department of Intellectual Property’s 2022 examination guidelines apply this test conservatively, as the following examples illustrate. A plain water bottle relying on subtle contours to signal its brand is typically read as just another bottle, not a source identifier. Acquired distinctiveness offers a theoretical escape route, but it demands extensive evidence of sales, advertising, and consumer recognition—an especially heavy burden for new entrants whose minimalist packaging has not yet achieved market prominence. The result is a structural bias against precisely the design innovation that sustainability goals are meant to encourage. Design Patents: A Partial, Imperfect Substitute Design patent protection, covering a product’s shape, configuration, or ornamentation, appears to offer an alternative route. In practice, it is constrained by the same forces driving the minimalist trend. Because many brands converge on similar solutions—clear
Read More
August 4, 2026
Intellectual property (IP) protection sometimes hinges on fame and recognition. However, this alone will not always be sufficient to overcome an IP dispute when it involves contractual obligations or registered rights. Below are five cases from around the world that tackle some of the basic issues in IP registration, ownership, commercialization, and enforcement. 1. USA: Taylor Swift Trademark Application Refused Taylor Swift recently filed a trademark application to register “The Life of a Showgirl,” which is the title of her 12th studio album. When examining a trademark application, the examiner considers various factors before deciding whether it should be registered. One of these factors is whether there is a likelihood of confusion (i.e., would a regular consumer mistake the origin of the trademark). In Taylor Swift’s case, the US Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO) decided that that there would be a risk of confusion. This decision was based on the existing registered trademark, “Confessions of a Showgirl,” owned by Maren Wade, which was registered in 2015. The USPTO refused Taylor Swift’s application based on the shared key distinctive element “of a showgirl,” the lack of sufficient distinguishing terms, the marks being used in overlapping markets (entertainment and performances), and because consumers may assume a common commercial source. Maren Wade then filed a lawsuit in California against Taylor Swift and her affiliated companies, arguing that Taylor Swfit’s branding is confusingly similar in structure, wording, and overall commercial impression to her registered mark. She is also drawing on the USPTO’s refusal of Taylor Swift’s application to support her argument of a likelihood of confusion. A judgment has not yet been reached in this case, but it serves as an important reminder of the importance of satisfying the essential elements required for IP registration. 2. Australia: Katy Perry v. Katie Perry In
Read More
July 27, 2026
Vietnam’s new E-Commerce Law, which took effect on 1 July 2026 along with its implementing Decree No. 248/2026/ND-CP (Decree 248), marks a significant development in the country’s approach to online intellectual property (IP) enforcement, reflecting a clear shift from a reactive model of intermediary liability to one that expects platforms to play a more active role in preventing infringement. From notice-and-takedown to platform responsibility The most significant change introduced by the E-Commerce Law is the transformation of the legal role of e-commerce platforms. The existing safe harbor provisions under the IP Law and the copyright notice-and-takedown regime established by Decree 17/2023/ND-CP (Decree 17) largely required intermediaries to act only after receiving notice of infringement. Once infringing content had been removed, the platform’s legal obligation was generally considered fulfilled. The new legislation adopts a fundamentally different approach. Article 17 of the E-Commerce Law requires intermediary platforms to screen information relating to goods and services before publication in order to prevent listings involving counterfeit or IP-infringing goods, and goods of unknown origin. Rather than relying exclusively on complaints from rights holders, platforms are now expected to implement preventive measures before infringing listings become publicly available. Decree 248 further requires platforms to update keyword filters based on recommendations issued by competent authorities. These filtering mechanisms are intended to prevent prohibited listings from appearing on the platform and represent a further move away from a purely complaint-driven enforcement model. The legislation also introduces Vietnam’s first statutory stay-down obligation. Under the E-Commerce Law and Decree 248, major digital platforms must maintain automated systems capable of reviewing, warning against, and removing unlawful listings while also implementing measures to prevent repeat violations, defined under Decree 248 as conduct that has previously been identified and handled by the platform, but continues to recur. This obligation addresses one
Read More
July 27, 2026
Tilleke & Gibbins’ intellectual property specialists have authored the Thailand chapter of Trade Secrets 2026 from Chambers and Partners. This global guide examines the legal frameworks governing trade secret protection, enforcement, and litigation across jurisdictions worldwide. The Thailand chapter provides a comprehensive overview of the country’s legal regime for protecting confidential business information, covering the legal framework, trade secret misappropriation, litigation procedures, remedies, and dispute resolution. Some topics covered include: Protectable trade secrets Reasonable measures to maintain secrecy Employee confidentiality Trade secret licensing Civil and criminal remedies Litigation procedures and injunctions Damages and other remedies Mediation and arbitration The guide also examines practical issues relating to safeguarding trade secrets, defending against allegations of misappropriation, and managing trade secret disputes in Thailand. Chambers and Partners’ Global Practice Guides provide in-house counsel with authoritative commentary on practical legal issues affecting business, enabling readers to compare legislation and procedures across multiple jurisdictions. The Thailand chapter of Trade Secrets 2026 is available on the Chambers and Partners website.
Read More