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

Subscribe to Updates

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 Professionals

Practices

Intellectual Property

Location

RELATED INSIGHTS​ 

August 13, 2026
Modern agricultural machinery is no longer purely mechanical but instead technology dependent. Modern tractors, harvesters, and other farm equipment increasingly incorporate embedded software, electronic control units, sensors, and digital diagnostic systems. While such technologies enhance efficiency, productivity, and precision farming, they also affect the manner of equipment repair and maintenance. As a result, farmers and independent repair providers may have little practical choice but to rely on authorized dealers, even for routine maintenance and repairs. Section 36 of Thailand’s Patent Act reflects the principle that the authorized sale of a patented invention usually exhausts the exclusive right of the patent owner over the specific product. This means that upon legal sale of the patented product, it can typically be used or resold without further authorization from the patent holder. This principle is relatively straightforward when applied to traditional mechanical equipment. Ownership of a machine ordinarily carries with it the practical ability to diagnose faults, replace worn parts, and restore the equipment to working order. Modern agricultural machinery, however, increasingly depends on embedded software, proprietary diagnostic systems, firmware updates, and other digital resources that may remain under the control of the manufacturer or patent holder. This tension lies within the “right to repair” debate. In the United States, on July 8, 2026, the Federal Trade Commission and five states announced a settlement with Deere & Company resolving allegations that Deere had unlawfully restricted farmers’ and independent repair providers’ ability to repair their equipment. Under the terms of the settlement, for the next ten years, Deere must provide repair resources, including software capabilities, on terms equivalent to those provided to authorized dealers. The Deere settlement highlights that the nature of ownership is changing, but legal concepts have not kept pace. Traditional patent-law concepts, including patent exhaustion, were developed with physical products
Read More
August 10, 2026
Thailand has finalized its social media KYC (“know your customer”) rules under Notification of the Electronic Transactions Commission on Measures to Prevent Technological Crimes for Social Media Service Providers (No. 2), which was published in the Government Gazette on May 5, 2026, and will take effect on November 1, 2026. While an early draft of the notification proposed requiring social media platforms to arrange identification of every user account, the final notification is significantly more targeted, focusing on paid online advertising and advertiser identity verification. Though the regulatory initiative primarily aims to combat online fraud and technology-related crimes, it also has important consequences for intellectual property enforcement, because the verified platform records that will be generated under the new requirements can help IP rights holders to identify anonymous online infringers. Key Regulatory Mandates The notification requires social media service providers to verify the identity of advertisers before their paid advertisements are published and disseminated in Thailand through social media, regardless of whether the advertising fees come from the advertisers or third parties. Verification of an advertiser is valid for one year, after which verification would have to be performed again before the platform could publish additional paid advertisements from the advertiser. Permitted verification methods are specified under the notification. A platform may verify an advertiser by checking identity evidence and confirming the connection between the advertiser and that identity evidence, with the notification giving facial comparison against certain government-issued identity documents as an example. Alternatively, platforms may verify advertisers through a digital identity verification and authentication system with an identity-proofing assurance level not lower than the level prescribed by Thailand’s Electronic Transactions Commission. The notification further requires platforms to retain only the advertiser’s information necessary to identify the advertiser, beginning from the start of the advertising activity and for
Read More
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