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​ 

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
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
Read More
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.
Read More
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
Read More