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​ 

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
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
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 as a PDF through the button below. The full guide can be accessed for free on the Chambers and Partners website.
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