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

March 31, 2026

Key Changes for Trademarks under Vietnam’s Amended IP Law

Subscribe to Updates

Vietnam’s most recent amendment of the Law on Intellectual Property (amended IP Law), passed by the National Assembly on December 10, 2025, and effective from April 1, 2026, represents one of the most significant updates to the IP Law in recent years. This amendment modernizes the IP framework, moving a step closer to international standards, while addressing the realities of Vietnam’s booming digital economy, e-commerce growth, and increasing foreign investment, which is crucial for Vietnam’s objective of complete economic transformation.

For trademark practitioners, brand owners, and businesses, the changes are largely positive, as they promise faster processes, stronger enforcement tools—especially for online actions—and better commercialization options. However, they also introduce stricter requirements and a need for proactive preparation. Below are some of the most noteworthy changes in the amended IP Law related to trademarks.

Significantly Shortened Timelines and Introduction of Fast-Track Examination

The statutory timelines under the amended IP Law have been notably reduced:

  • Substantive examination for trademarks is shortened from 9 months to 5 months (from the publication date).
  • The publication period is shortened from 2 months to 1 month.
  • A new fast-track mechanism allows substantive examination in as little as 3 months for qualifying applications (e.g., marks in actual use, facing infringement threats, or meeting government-specified criteria; details to be clarified in implementing regulations).
  • The opposition period is shortened from 5 months to 3 months from publication.

This is arguably the most welcome change. Vietnam’s IP Office has long faced criticism for lengthy backlogs, often stretching the trademark registration process to 18–24 months or more. The new timelines bring Vietnam closer to efficient systems. The fast-track option is particularly smart for high-value or urgent cases such as counterfeit threats on e-commerce platforms.

However, careful preparation is mandatory for flawless applications from the start to maximize fast-track eligibility. Actively monitoring for infringing trademarks in the IP Gazette is also crucial to avoid missing the shorter opposition due date.

Tighter Control of Marks Containing “Vietnam” or National Elements

The amended IP Law has enhanced restrictions on registering marks that include the term “Vietnam” or other national elements. In particular, the newly added Article 74.2.dd1 rules that signs indicating the geographical origin of goods and services in Vietnam are indistinctive, except in cases where such signs have been widely used and recognized as trademarks before the filing date, or where such signs are a constituent element of a distinctive sign registered as a collective trademark or certification trademark.

This means that refusal will be issued for the entire mark containing the element “Vietnam” (if it is not a collective trademark or certification trademark), rather than merely requiring a disclaimer for the “Vietnam” portion as was often the practice in the past.

This protects national branding and prevents abusive registrations, while being a reasonable safeguard in a market where “Vietnam” elements are popular for export-oriented brands. However, it may also increase refusals of legitimate businesses.

Expanded Grounds for Bad-Faith Invalidation

According to Article 100.7 of the amended IP Law, if there is reason to believe that the information in an application is inaccurate or untruthful/dishonest, the IP Office has the authority to withdraw the decision on granting the certificate of registration. Although indirect, this provision helps strengthen control over bad-faith filings, and provides additional an basis to invalidate bad-faith trademarks.

Overall, this change makes the system fairer and less prone to squatting, though proving an element is “untruthful” or “dishonest” may still require strong evidence.

Enhanced Commercialization of Trademarks as Assets

The amended IP Law explicitly encourages the use of IP rights (including trademarks) as capital contribution or collateral for loans and provides a clearer framework for valuation, licensing, and transfer.

In practice, trademarks are often undervalued intangible assets in Vietnam. By treating them as financial tools, the law unlocks new funding avenues for SMEs, such as bank loans secured by strong brands. While this elevates IP from a defensive right to a strategic business asset, it also requires robust valuation standards and risk management, such as assessing validity and encumbrances.

Final Thoughts

The 2025 amendments are a bold, business-friendly reform positioning Vietnam as a more competitive IP jurisdiction, promising faster registration, digital enforcement, and asset commercialization. Businesses ignoring these changes risk delays or lost opportunities in a market where strong brands drive growth. This update reflects Vietnam’s commitment to innovation, e-commerce, and global integration, which is timely and necessary. For those who are managing trademarks in Vietnam, now is the time to adapt and capitalize on these improvements.

Related Professionals

Practices

Intellectual Property

Location

RELATED INSIGHTS​ 

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
July 27, 2026
In March 2025, Thailand’s Central Intellectual Property and International Trade Court (IP&IT Court) issued a landmark judgment in favor of Luckin Coffee, China’s leading retail coffee chain. The judgment marked a significant turnaround following earlier trademark litigation involving Luckin Coffee from 2021 to 2023 that had generated widespread public attention and raised questions about the protection available to legitimate foreign brand owners in Thailand. In a significant subsequent development, Thailand’s Court of Appeal for Specialized Cases has now affirmed the IP&IT Court’s judgment in its entirety. The appellate decision brings clarity to one of Thailand’s most closely watched trademark disputes. Significantly, this is the first case in Thailand to formally recognize the trademark squatting principle. The Court of Appeal confirmed that Luckin Coffee has a better right to the disputed mark and ordered cancellation of the defendants’ trademark registration—a key application of the “better right” doctrine. The court also upheld the substantial damages awarded at first instance, providing important guidance on assessing harm from systematic trademark squatting. Award-Winning Judgment Affirmed in Its Entirety The significance of the first-instance judgment extended beyond the outcome for Luckin Coffee. The IP&IT Court judgment was subsequently recognized in the IP&IT Court’s Distinguished Judgment Awards in 2025, reflecting the complexity, novelty, and legal significance of the issues considered in the case. The defendants nevertheless appealed the judgment, challenging several key aspects of the IP&IT Court’s decision. Luckin Coffee continued to entrust Tilleke & Gibbins as their sole attorney to pursue the case at the appellate level. After considering the defendants’ appeal and Luckin Coffee’s submissions in response, the Court of Appeal affirmed the first-instance judgment in its entirety. The judgment was announced on July 8, 2026. Better Right to the Marks The Court of Appeal confirmed Luckin Coffee’s superior rights. The orders include cancellation
Read More