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 13, 2026

Decree 186 Transforms Vietnam’s Administrative IP Enforcement Framework

When Decree No. 186/2026/ND-CP (Decree 186) takes effect on July 15, 2026, it will introduce the most significant reform of Vietnam’s administrative IP enforcement framework since Decree 99/2013/ND-CP was issued in 2013. These changes are expected to make administrative enforcement faster, more accessible, and better suited to the realities of modern IP disputes.

Below are the principal reforms and their practical implications for rights holders and enforcement practitioners.

The End of Notarization and Consular Legalization

Among the most welcome procedural changes is the abolition of the notarization and consular legalization requirement for powers of attorney (POA) submitted in administrative enforcement proceedings. Under the previous regime, foreign rights holders were generally required to execute a POA, then have it notarized and consular legalized (if seeking customs recordal). In practice, this process frequently delayed enforcement by four to eight weeks, often long enough for infringing goods to disappear before authorities could intervene.

Decree 186 removes this bottleneck, now requiring only an original or certified copy of the POA. If the document is in a foreign language, a Vietnamese translation is sufficient, provided it is certified by a competent authority or confirmed by the authorized Vietnamese IP representative. Consular legalization and notarization are no longer required.

For rights holders, the practical impact is substantial. Administrative enforcement files that previously took weeks to prepare can now be completed in a matter of days, allowing much faster responses in time-sensitive matters such as warehouse raids, border interventions, and trade-fair enforcement.

The decree also introduces a useful administrative simplification. Where an original POA has already been submitted to the same enforcement authority and remains valid, applicants may rely on a copy of that earlier submission by identifying the previous case file. This eliminates unnecessary duplication for rights holders pursuing multiple enforcement actions before the same authority.

Extension of MSA’s Enforcement Jurisdiction to Service Businesses

For years, owners of service marks in Vietnam faced a peculiar enforcement gap. A restaurant chain would discover a competitor brazenly copying its branding on a shopfront two blocks away. The natural enforcement channel would be the Market Surveillance Agency (MSA), the most geographically dispersed enforcement body with offices in every district. Yet when the brand owner’s counsel filed a complaint, the authorities would point out that, according to statute, their authority covered only violations in the “production, trading, transportation, and storage of goods.” Services were not within their mandate.

Decree 186 resolves this controversy with unmistakable clarity. The decree expressly confirms the MSA’s jurisdiction over violations arising in commercial service business activities as well. For practitioners, the implication is straightforward. Service mark owners now have clear access to Vietnam’s most geographically extensive administrative enforcement body, making the MSA a considerably more attractive option for many service-related infringement cases.

Institutional Restructuring: The IP Office Takes Control

Decree 186 also reflects Vietnam’s broader institutional restructuring. Following the dissolution of the Science and Technology Inspectorate, the Intellectual Property Office of Vietnam (IP Office) has been given direct authority to impose administrative penalties under Chapter II of the decree.

This change represents far more than a simple administrative transfer. The IP Office is the agency responsible for examining and granting IP rights, and its officials possess considerable technical expertise in patents, trademarks, and industrial designs. Consolidating enforcement powers within the same institution may promote greater technical consistency when assessing infringement.

The revised decree also recalibrates the powers of other enforcement authorities. The MSAs, the Departments of Science and Technology, customs, the police (including cybersecurity police units), and People’s Committees at various levels all retain administrative enforcement powers with updated penalty thresholds reflecting the new institutional framework.

New Tools for Tackling Online Infringement

Another important innovation is the introduction of domain name access blocking as an administrative remedy. Previously, enforcement authorities could order the return, revocation, or transfer of domain names, but these measures were largely effective only against .vn domain names administered within Vietnam. International domain names used to promote counterfeit goods often remained beyond the practical reach of administrative enforcement.

Under Decree 186, the authorities may require hosting providers to implement technical measures to block access to infringing domain names within Vietnam. The decree prescribes specific timelines for implementing blocking orders, reporting compliance, and restoring access where a blocking decision is later lifted.

Although determined infringers can migrate to new domains, access blocking provides enforcement authorities with an important interim tool to disrupt infringing online operations while other enforcement measures continue. Combined with Vietnam’s evolving e-commerce regulatory framework, it represents a meaningful expansion of the country’s online IP enforcement toolkit.

Additional Noteworthy Changes

Decree 186 also broadens protection relating to business names. The previous decree referred only to enterprise names, whereas the new provisions expressly cover both enterprise names and business household names. Given the significant number of businesses operating as household businesses in Vietnam, this amendment closes an important enforcement gap.

The decree also introduces a counterbalancing safeguard for rights holders initiating administrative enforcement. Where goods are seized following an enforcement request but the resulting penalty decision is subsequently amended or revoked, the complainant must compensate the affected party in accordance with its prior undertaking. The provision reinforces the importance of ensuring that enforcement requests are supported by adequate evidence before administrative measures are sought.

Looking Ahead

Decree 186 represents a significant step forward in the evolution of Vietnam’s administrative IP enforcement regime. The decree addresses many of the practical challenges that have affected administrative enforcement over the past decade.

Implementation will inevitably determine the ultimate success of these reforms, and consistency across local enforcement authorities will remain an important consideration. Nevertheless, the amendments provide rights holders with a more efficient and versatile administrative enforcement framework.

RELATED INSIGHTS​ 

September 7, 2026
Indonesia’s Constitutional Court (Mahkamah Konstitusi) has reinstated a key provision limiting pharmaceutical patent protection, signaling a renewed commitment to balancing patent rights with public access to medicines. In its ruling to Case No. 255/PUU-XXIII/2025, the court partially granted a petition for judicial review of Law No. 65 of 2024, which had amended the country’s Patent Law, and ordered the restoration of a provision that had excluded certain pharmaceutical inventions from patentability. The decision took effect immediately upon its pronouncement at the court’s plenary session on August 28, 2026. Background The petition challenged the removal of article 4(f) from Law No. 13 of 2016 concerning Patents (Patent Law), as amended by Law No. 65 of 2024. Article 4(f) had excluded from patentability certain inventions relating to new uses of known substances. The petitioners argued that removing this provision would open the door to patent protection for second medical use inventions and facilitate patent evergreening—practices that can extend exclusivity periods, delay generic market entry, and reduce public access to affordable medicines. The petitioners included several patient advocacy and public-interest organizations: the Indonesian Dialysis Patients Community Association, the Indonesian Association of Drug Abuse Victims (PKNI), the Indonesian Pulmonary Hypertension Foundation (YHPI), the Rekat Peduli Indonesia Foundation, and the Indonesian Positive Women’s Association (IPPI), along with the Indonesia for Global Justice Association and four individual petitioners. The petitioners also challenged the constitutionality of the phrase “interested party” in article 70(1) of the Patent Law, arguing that it should be construed expressly to clarify who has standing to appeal a decision to grant a patent before the Board of Patent Appeal, and to allow a broader range of parties—such as patent holders, licensees, consumer organizations, prosecutors, aggrieved third parties, and others who may suffer direct or indirect harm from the grant of a patent—to
September 2, 2026
Thailand and China have a longstanding and significant trade relationship, which increasingly extends to e-commerce and digitally enabled supply chains. While these channels create new opportunities for businesses to reach consumers across borders, their growth also brings greater exposure to intellectual property (IP) infringement across jurisdictions and online platforms. Effective cooperation between the two countries’ enforcement authorities has therefore become increasingly important. To strengthen cooperation in this area, Thailand and China signed a memorandum of understanding (MOU) on IP enforcement in Beijing on July 20, 2026, during the Thai prime minister’s official visit to China. Officially titled “Memorandum of Understanding Between the State Administration for Market Regulation of the People’s Republic of China and the Ministry of Commerce of the Kingdom of Thailand on Cooperation in the Field of Intellectual Property Enforcement,” the MOU forms part of a broader bilateral agenda covering industrial and supply chains, participation by micro, small, and medium-sized enterprises (MSMEs), cooperation associated with the ASEAN–China Free Trade Area 3.0, and progress on the registration of Thai geographical indications in China. The MOU establishes a bilateral framework for cooperation and coordination in five broad areas: Strengthening dialogue in IP enforcement; Enhancing information sharing; Facilitating the enforcement of IP rights in cases arising in the parties’ domestic markets and on online platforms, in accordance with their respective domestic laws; Promoting cooperation in IP enforcement training and human resource development; and Undertaking other cooperation activities agreed upon by both sides. The Department of Intellectual Property (DIP) will serve as the principal coordinating agency for Thailand, while the Bureau of Law Enforcement and Inspection in China’s State Administration for Market Regulation (SAMR) will serve in that role for China. The framework is particularly relevant to the growth of e-commerce, as it covers infringement in the domestic markets and on
August 28, 2026
When considering a franchise, many people first think of a restaurant, retail chain, or service outlet. From a legal perspective, however, the foundation of every franchise lies in the right to use a brand, which is typically granted through a trademark license. Trademarks are often the most valuable assets in a franchise system. Through a trademark license, a franchisor authorizes a franchisee to use its trademarks, logos, and branding while maintaining control over how the brand is presented to customers. The Role of Trademarks in Franchise Businesses Under the Trademark Law 2019, a mark is defined as a sign that is capable of distinguishing the goods or services of one undertaking from those of others in the course of trade. This distinguishing function is particularly important in a franchise arrangement, where the franchisee’s use of the franchisor’s trademark allows consumers to recognize the source, quality, and reputation of the business. In this way, trademarks help preserve brand identity, strengthen market recognition, and protect the commercial value of the franchise system. Legal Foundation for Franchise Brand Protection Myanmar presently does not have a specific statutory framework governing franchise arrangements. As a result, franchise agreements are generally regulated under the broader applicable legal framework, including the Contract Act 1872, the Trademark Law 2019, the Competition Law 2015, the Consumer Protection Law 2019, and the relevant implementing rules and regulations. The licensing of trademarks within a franchise arrangement is particularly governed by the Trademark Law 2019. Franchisors should ensure that the trademarks intended to be licensed to franchisees in Myanmar are registered under the Trademark Law 2019 and that the relevant trademark license is properly recorded with the Intellectual Property Department (IPD). Trademark License Recordal Under the Trademark Law 2019, the owner of a registered trademark may grant a license to another
August 27, 2026
It is generally understood that patents are granted for new designs that have not been widely known or used in Thailand and not been disclosed anywhere prior to the date of the patent application. It is trite law that design law protects the distinctive appearance or products. Under Section 3 of the Thai Patent Act B.E. 2522, as amended by the Patent Act (No. 2) B.E. 2535 and the Patent Act (No. 3) B.E. 2542, a design is defined as “any form or composition of lines or colors that gives a product a special appearance and can serve as a pattern for an industrial or handicraft product.” This raises an important question. Can a patent be issued for a product design that contains text, numerals, trademarks, or symbols that do not fall under the definition of a design? This issue commonly arises when attempting to register packaging, labels, and graphical user interfaces (GUIs). Until a few years ago, applicants could file design applications with the Thai Patent Office for designs that contained such elements, provided that an appropriate disclaimer was included. This practice was generally accepted by Thai design examiners at that time, but the Patent Office has since implemented a change in its practice that could have a significant impact on applicants for design patents. Where design representations are submitted as line drawings or computer-aided design (CAD) drawings, the examiner may now issue an office action requiring their removal. This practice, however, appears to be applied inconsistently, as some examiners still exercise their own discretion in determining whether drawings containing these elements are acceptable. Below are examples of a GUI design, a CAD drawing design, and a photographic design representation that illustrates issues relating to the presence of nonallowable elements. GUI design For this GUI design, the submitted