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​ 

April 29, 2026
Across the region, local brands have become key drivers of economic growth, cultural identity, and innovation, and Myanmar is no exception. From traditional products and creative industries to modern startups and small and medium‑sized enterprises (SMEs), Myanmar’s local brands are increasingly shaping domestic markets. However, as local brands grow, they also face higher risks of imitation, misuse, and unfair competition. In this context, protecting brand identity, creativity, and innovation through proper intellectual property (IP) strategies is essential to ensure that Myanmar’s homegrown businesses can grow sustainably, compete confidently, and retain the value of what they create. The Key IP Laws for Local Brands In 2019, Myanmar enacted a comprehensive suite of four IP laws, aligning the nation’s IP enforcement framework with international standards. Trademark Law 2019: This law introduced the “first-to-file” system into the country, with trademark rights primarily obtained through registration with the Intellectual Property Department (IPD). Trademarks protect brand names, logos, and other signs that distinguish goods or services. Registration grants the exclusive rights to use the mark and to prevent others from using identical or confusingly similar marks. Each registration lasts for 10 years from the filing date and can be renewed for subsequent 10-year periods. Copyright Law 2019: Copyright, which arises automatically upon creation, protects literary, artistic, musical, and audiovisual works, including software, advertisements, artwork, and social media content. While registration with the IPD is not mandatory under this law, it can be helpful for establishing evidence and supporting any future enforcement. The terms of protection for economic rights associated with copyrights vary depending on the type of work involved. In contrast, the protection for moral rights lasts indefinitely—continuing even after the author’s death. Industrial Design Law 2019: Under this law, any industrial design that is new and independently created can be filed with the
Read More
April 21, 2026
Vietnam continues to refine its intellectual property framework to align with the 2025 amendments to the Law on Intellectual Property (IP Law). On March 31, 2026, the government issued Decree 100/2026/ND-CP (Decree 100), which substantially amends Decree 65/2023/ND-CP detailing the implementation of the IP Law (Decree 65). On the same day, the Ministry of Science and Technology released Circular 10/2026/TT-BKHCN (Circular 10), providing detailed procedural guidance and new forms. Both instruments took effect on April 1, 2026, along with the amended IP Law. While the updates touch on every IP right, trademark owners and brand strategists will find several practical and forward-looking changes that directly affect filing strategy, examination timelines, portfolio management, and enforcement readiness. 1. Fast-Track Substantive Examination for Eligible Applications One of the most business-friendly innovations is the new fast-track substantive examination pathway for applications meeting specified eligibility criteria. Successful fast-track applications enjoy a shortened substantive examination period of three months. This offers a significant competitive edge for tech-driven or regulated-sector brands. If the mark is identical or similar to a mark in another person’s trademark application with an earlier filing date in the case of a priority application that has not yet been processed, the fast-track process will return to the ordinary process. However, the law does not touch on cases where marks under fast-track examination face office action due to other reasons (i.e. lack of distinctiveness, confusingly similar to others’ copyright, trade name, industrial design, etc.) 2. AI-Generated Trademarks Receive Clear Protection Pathway Decree 100 explicitly addresses the use of artificial intelligence (AI) in IP creation, amending Article 10a of Decree 65 to confirm that trademarks created with AI systems are fully protectable, provided they meet the standard requirements of registration. Trademarks face no additional “human authorship” hurdle (unlike patents or industrial designs). Brand owners
Read More
April 20, 2026
Myanmar’s industrial design registration regime has been steadily gaining momentum since the country officially began accepting applications under the Industrial Design Law of 2019. The Industrial Design Division of Myanmar’s Intellectual Property Department (IPD) has actively advanced examination and registration procedures, and as of March 2026, approximately 300 industrial design applications have been published in the IPD’s publicly accessible database—a meaningful milestone in the development of Myanmar’s emerging intellectual property framework. This figure reflects only published applications; additional filings remain pending and will be published after the conclusion of ongoing examination. Filing Requirements in Practice Compliance with a defined set of mandatory requirements is the foundation for filing a valid design application. These mandatory particulars must be provided at the time of filing in order to establish a filing date. These include the applicant’s and creator’s identifying details, a notarized appointment of representative form, the Locarno Classification of the associated product, and a set of graphic representations of the design across multiple standard views. Applicants must also provide a written description of the design and, where applicable, information relating to any priority claim or request for deferred publication. Filing fees are payable at the time of submission. Beyond these core requirements, applicants typically need to provide supplementary documentation, either at the time of filing or in response to a formality examination. This may include evidence of the applicant’s legal entitlement to the design—particularly where the applicant and creator are different parties—as well as supporting corporate and authorization documents. Where priority rights are claimed, the relevant documents must generally be submitted within three months of the Myanmar filing date, with certified English translations required for any non-English priority applications. The supplementary requirements may vary depending on the nature of the application and the examiner’s requests during the formality examination process.
Read More
April 3, 2026
On March 16, 2026, Vietnam’s Ministry of Public Security released a draft version of a new Decree on the Prevention and Combating of Cybercrime and High-Tech Crime to replace the currently effective Decree 25/2014/ND-CP. In the draft, the ministry has proposed a comprehensive regulatory framework aimed at addressing violations occurring within the cybersecurity domain, including measures related to intellectual property. Acts of Online IP Infringement Article 9 of the draft decree notably introduces specific provisions addressing online intellectual property infringement, with detailed lists of acts considered to constitute infringement in the online environment. Copyright and related rights infringement includes: Uploading or sharing works, performances, sound recordings, video recordings, broadcasts, computer programs, software, research, documents, theses, or other intellectual creations on digital platforms without the consent of the rights holder. Unauthorized livestreaming of copyrighted television programs, sporting events, or artistic performances. Uploading, sharing, storing, transmitting, or providing links to infringing works or digital content via websites, social networks, applications, or digital platforms. Providing or using software, tools, devices, or access codes to circumvent technological protection measures or evade lawful control mechanisms implemented by rights holders. Using artificial intelligence (AI) tools to replicate the ideas or structure of another person’s work without significant new creativity or without proper attribution, thereby causing damage to the original author. Industrial property infringement includes: Manufacturing, trading, advertising, or distributing counterfeit goods bearing counterfeit trademarks, geographical indications, or industrial designs, as well as goods infringing industrial property rights through online platforms. Unauthorized registration, appropriation, or use of domain names, account names, or digital identifiers that create confusion regarding the rights holder or the origin of goods or services. Producing, using, or offering for sale products containing all or part of a patented invention via online platforms. Advertising or introducing products with technical features or characteristics identical
Read More