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 6, 2018

IP Impact of Vietnam’s New Penal Code

Subscribe to Updates
Managing Intellectual Property

In November 2015, the National Assembly of Vietnam issued a new Penal Code that was scheduled to come into effect on July 1, 2016, replacing the Penal Code of 1999. However, due to some inconsistencies and shortcomings in the law as drafted, its full implementation was put on hold until necessary amendments could be made. A revised version of the new Penal Code was subsequently issued in June 2017, and finally took effect this year on January 1.

While much of the media coverage of the new Penal Code has focused on the changes related to anti-corruption – notably the expansion of bribery regulations to the private sector – the new code will impact many other aspects of doing business in Vietnam, including intellectual property protection.

Corporate Criminal Liability

Perhaps the most important change ushered in by the new Penal Code is that, for the first time, commercial legal entities (i.e., companies) can be prosecuted before criminal courts for certain offenses. Previously, criminal liability was limited to individuals.

The applicable offenses are listed under Article 76 of the new Penal Code, and include 33 types of crimes divided into two broad groups: economic crimes, such as insurance fraud and trading in banned goods, and environmental crimes, such as causing pollution and destroying natural resources. Among the economic crimes are several related to intellectual property, including copyright infringement, trademark and geographical indication infringement, and manufacturing and trading in counterfeit goods.

Commercial legal entities found guilty of these crimes may be subject to fines, temporary suspension of operation, permanent shutdown, a ban from operating in certain fields, prohibition from raising capital, and other judicial remedies related to intellectual property, such as those provided in the IP Law.

It is worth noting that the fact that a commercial legal entity has criminal liability does not exempt the responsibility of individuals. In other words, even if a company is imposed with penalties for its offense, officers or employees of the company connected to the violating act could still be separately punished as individuals.

Changes in IP Provisions

The new Penal Code includes several provisions on intellectual property, including Article 225 on infringement of copyright and related rights, and Article 226 on infringement of industrial property rights (specifically trademarks and geographical indications). Under the previous Penal Code, these offenses could be subject to criminal proceedings if the violator committed the infringement on a “commercial scale.” However, there was no guideline for what constituted “commercial scale,” which made enforcement difficult. Under the new Penal Code, the financial thresholds in terms of illegal profit generated or loss incurred by the copyright or trademark/geographical indication owner are clearly stated.

Article 192 covers the crime of manufacturing and trading in counterfeit goods, while Articles 193-195 set out further provisions for counterfeit goods in the high-risk areas of food, medicine, and agricultural products. As with the infringement provisions, these articles under the new Penal Code now provide more clarification as to what specific circumstances or financial thresholds constitute a crime, replacing some of the vague language in the old Penal Code. Brand owners no longer face the challenge of distinguishing between “serious consequences,” “very serious consequences,” and “especially serious consequences,” which should lead to more favorable enforcement conditions.

In addition, with the introduction of corporate criminal liability, the IP-related articles of the new Penal Code clearly state the penalties applicable to companies for such infringement or violation, which are significantly higher than the penalties for individuals. For example, an individual committing trademark infringement resulting in illegal profit of more than VND 300 million (USD 13,250) can be subject to a fine of VND 500 million (USD 22,000) to VND 1 billion (USD 44,000); a company committing the same crime can be subject to a fine of VND 2 billion (USD 88,000) to VND 5 billion (USD 220,000).

One IP-related offense found in the previous Penal Code has been removed from the new Penal Code: the crime of breaching the regulations on granting industrial property protection titles or certificates, which would apply to, for example, a government official who refused to grant trademark protection to a clearly qualified applicant. Though such action has been decriminalized, IPR holders who believe they have been unfairly treated can still take these cases to administrative court.

Outlook

In theory, the new Penal Code is a milestone in IP enforcement, establishing criminal measures as a viable alternative to administrative and civil measures, with the possibility of rendering the most serious penalties. However, the effectiveness of the new provisions might not be guaranteed in the near future, due to a lack of actual enforcement experience of authorities including the police and prosecutors.

Regardless, the additions and clarifications in the new Penal Code are a welcome advance in Vietnam’s ongoing battle against piracy and counterfeit goods, and will help the country get in line with its commitments in bilateral and multilateral economic treaties such as the EVFTA, which requires Vietnam to strengthen criminal enforcement of IPRs.

Download Full Article
Related Professionals

Practices

Intellectual Property

Location

RELATED INSIGHTS​ 

June 24, 2026
Patent enablement requirements are provided under Article 102 of Vietnam’s Law on Intellectual Property (IP Law). In particular, a patent specification must “fully and clearly disclose the nature of the invention to such an extent that, based on the specification, a person having ordinary skill in the relevant art can implement the invention.” In pharmaceutical and biotechnology patents, this requirement is more complicated and subject to more rigorous assessment. The Patent Examination Guidelines (Guidelines) of the Intellectual Property Office of Vietnam (IP Office) were amended in March 2026 to introduce Annexes III and IV for the pharmaceutical and biotechnology sectors, in which Annex III provides detailed guidelines on the assessment of specification requirements. These amendments were made under a project for strengthening capacity in industrial property examination between the Japan International Cooperation Agency (JICA) and the IP Office. Annex III provides detailed instructions on how examiners assess enablement in a pharmaceutical or biotechnology application, and offers examples of acceptable and unacceptable descriptions with regard to the enablement aspect. Enablement Requirements in Pharma and Biotech Patents Article 12.7 of Circular 10/2026/TT-BKHCN (Circular 10) adds to the requirements of Article 102 of the IP Law that the description must demonstrate the novelty, inventive step, and industrial applicability of the technical solution. For pharmaceutical composition subject matters, Article 12.9 of Circular 10 sets out that the description must present the results of clinical trials and/or the pharmacological effects of the claimed pharmaceutical composition, and must include at least the following information: Substance/mixture used. Testing method (system) employed. Information on the test results. Correlation between the pharmacological effects obtained from the tests and the application of the pharmaceutical product in the prevention, diagnosis, and treatment of diseases. The Guidelines note that pharmacological study results should be presented in a quantified manner, and pharmacological
Read More
June 16, 2026
Since the implementation of the Trademark Law 2019 on April 1, 2023, Myanmar has operated under a modern first-to-file trademark system that brings its registration framework closer to international practice. As the new regime continues to develop in practice, applicants are increasingly required to navigate formal examination requirements, substantive objections, and procedural deadlines with greater precision. This article provides a high-level review of the trademark examination process in Myanmar, focusing on the principal stages from initial review to approval, the types of objections commonly raised by the Intellectual Property Department (IPD), and the key considerations for responding effectively. A clear understanding of these issues is essential for applicants seeking to secure registration efficiently and to mitigate avoidable delays or refusals. Examination Process: Key Stages Trademark applications filed with the IPD undergo two stages of review. Formality Examination The IPD first verifies compliance with procedural requirements, including: Correct Nice Classification Clear mark representation Accurate applicant details Clearly defined goods or services Representative details, if the application is filed by a representative Other formality requirements cover translation and transliteration of any non-English or non-Myanmar elements in the mark, color claim details, applicable disclaimers, and payment of official fees. Deficiencies result in an office action requiring correction within 30 days, which may be extended upon request. Registrability Examination The IPD also assesses registrability. A mark may be refused if it: Lacks distinctiveness Is descriptive or generic Misleads the public or violates public order/morality Contains prohibited state symbols Only compliant applications proceed to publication. Responding to Office Actions Applicants must respond within 30 days of notification from the IPD. Depending on the nature of the objection, strategies may include submitting legal arguments for distinctiveness, providing evidence of acquired distinctiveness, filing appropriate disclaimers, clarifying descriptions such as color claims, or amending the listed goods
Read More
June 15, 2026
The surge in AI development has led to a desperate demand for large, high-quality training data. However, real-world data can be expensive to collect, difficult to access, and often subject to strict privacy and regulatory constraints. Synthetic data, which consists of artificially generated records that replicate the statistical properties of real-world data without reproducing specific individuals’ information, provides an appealing solution by generating artificial datasets at scale without relying on identifiable personal information. It combines speed, cost efficiency, and regulatory compliance, making it a sensible alternative for organizations seeking to reduce risks while maintaining data utility. When properly anonymized, synthetic datasets may fall outside the scope of laws such as the EU’s General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR) or Thailand’s Personal Data Protection Act (PDPA), reducing compliance burdens while still supporting high-quality model training. However, relying on synthetic data without rigorous legal due diligence could be a strategic mistake. It replaces one set of known risks (scraping, direct privacy liability) with a new set of complex liabilities. The narrative that synthetic data is a “silver bullet” for privacy and IP compliance is dangerous and could be misleading. While synthetic data addresses data scarcity, it also introduces new legal uncertainties. Legal counsel should anticipate downstream risks arising from compromised data sources. Models trained on unlawfully obtained data may need to be decommissioned, even if their outputs appear lawful. What is synthetic data? Synthetic data refers to artificially generated information created using AI techniques such as deep learning and generative models. Instead of copying real records, it reproduces the statistical patterns and relationships found in the original dataset. Synthetic data generally falls into three categories: Fully synthetic data – Entirely new data points generated from learned patterns. The model studies the structure of the original data and produces records that resemble real-world
Read More
June 10, 2026
In March 2026, the Intellectual Property Office of Vietnam (IP Office) issued a decision refusing a trademark application after considering an opposition based primarily on copyright grounds. The outcome is noteworthy because the foreign brand owner had neither trademark registrations nor applications in Vietnam at the time the opposition was filed, and the IP Office has historically applied a stringent approach to oppositions relying on copyright. The Opposition Maurten is a well-known Swedish sports nutrition brand recognized globally for its innovative hydrogel technology, which is designed to help endurance athletes fuel more effectively without gastrointestinal discomfort. The brand’s distinctive logo is characterized by clean lines and a bold black-and-white color scheme, and has long been associated with the company’s performance products. The brand’s logo is displayed above. An identical mark was filed for registration by a Vietnamese trademark squatter. In 2023, a Vietnamese individual filed an application for registration of an identical mark (Application No. 4-2023-38668), a practice commonly observed in Vietnam as trademark squatting. The brand owner engaged Tilleke & Gibbins to assist with strategy and filing an opposition to the mark. At the time, Maurten had no trademark rights or meaningful use in Vietnam, and global marketing data showed only modest figures without any local presence. Thus, to convince the IP Office to refuse the squatter’s application, instead of relying on trademark rights or use evidence, the opposition strategy centered on the copyright protection of the logo itself, as copyright arises automatically in Vietnam upon creation of the work and does not require registration. (It is worth noting, however, that the IP Office has traditionally been cautious in accepting copyright as a basis for refusing trademark applications.) On September 24, 2024, an opposition was filed on three main grounds: confusing similarity, copyright infringement of the artistic work,
Read More