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 25, 2025

Major Legal Changes Impacting Vietnam’s IP Regime: 2025 Legislative Updates

Subscribe to Updates
Managing Intellectual Property

Over the first half of 2025, the government of Vietnam has implemented a comprehensive suite of legislative reforms that significantly impact the country’s intellectual property (IP) framework. These amendments, most of which took effect on 1 July 2025, span the criminal, civil, administrative, and judicial sectors, and are part of a broader initiative to modernize Vietnam’s legal infrastructure, strengthen enforcement mechanisms, and harmonize domestic regulations with international standards.

A summary of the key legislative changes and their potential implications for IP protection and enforcement across Vietnam is provided below.

Criminal Code: Stricter penalties

Under the 2025 amendments to Vietnam’s Criminal Code, penalties for offenses involving the manufacturing and trading of counterfeit goods have been significantly escalated. Individuals convicted of such violations now face fines ranging from VND 200 million to VND 2 billion (approximately USD 7,700 to USD 77,000; up from VND 100 million to VND 1 billion). For corporate entities, the penalties are even more severe, with fines ranging from VND 2 billion to VND 40 billion (roughly USD 77,000 to USD 1.54 million; up from VND 1 billion to VND 20 billion). These heightened penalties reflect the government’s intensified efforts to deter counterfeit-related crimes and protect consumer rights.

Law on Handling Administrative Violations: Extended statute of limitations and application of electronic procedure

The statute of limitations for addressing administrative violations in the IP sector is still two years. However, in cases where such violations are referred by procedural authorities, this period is extended by one year. The time taken by these authorities to process the case is now included within the overall limitation period.

In addition, the Law on Handling Administrative Violations facilitates the use of electronic procedures, provided that the necessary infrastructure, technical systems, and information conditions are in place. Specifically, enforcement authorities are now permitted to deliver decisions, records, and related documents to violators through digital means such as email, online platforms, and SMS. The adoption of these technologies is expected to improve procedural efficiency and streamline administrative workflows.

Law on Organization of People’s Courts: Specialized courts and jurisdiction

The 2025 amendments called for the establishment of specialized courts at both provincial and regional levels, including dedicated divisions for IP and technology transfer disputes. Pursuant to Resolution No. 81/2025/UBTVQH15, two specialized IP courts have been instituted – one in Hanoi and the other in Ho Chi Minh City. The Hanoi IP Court will exercise first-instance jurisdiction over IP disputes arising in 20 northern and central provinces and cities, while the Ho Chi Minh City IP Court will oversee cases from the remaining 14 provinces and cities nationwide. Appeals from these specialized IP courts will be adjudicated by the relevant provincial-level courts.

Provincial-level courts will continue to exercise first-instance jurisdiction over IP disputes that were filed and formally accepted prior to 1 July 2025. In contrast, IP cases that were initiated and accepted by district-level courts before this date will be transferred to one of the two newly established specialized IP courts.

Additionally, Resolution No. 01/2025/NQ-HDTP by the Council of Judges of the Supreme People’s Court sets out guidance for managing pending cases and delineates authority among court tiers.

Law on Inspection: Inspectorate levels simplified

Inspectorates previously operating under ministries, departments and sectoral agencies, such as those affiliated with the Ministry of Science and Technology, the Ministry of Culture, Sports, and Tourism, or city or provincial-level departments of science and technology, have been officially dissolved. Under the amended Law on Inspection, the inspection framework has been streamlined into two core levels: the Government Inspectorate and provincial inspectorates. However, as of the law’s effective date, 1 July 2025, there was still a lack of implementing guidelines, which are essential for translating the law’s provisions into practical enforcement and ensuring procedural clarity.

Other Key Developments

Trademark-infringing company names: Under Decree No. 168/2025/ND-CP, the business registration framework has been streamlined to accelerate the handling of company names that infringe trademarks. The review period by authorities has been significantly reduced from 10 days to just 3 days, and businesses found to be infringing must now complete the name change procedure within 60 days or face administrative penalties. This reform empowers IP rights holders to combat brand misappropriation more swiftly and effectively.

Targeting e-commerce platforms: Regulations under Decree No. 117/2025/ND-CP, in addition to tightening tax management, mandate that e-commerce traders provide complete and verifiable personal identification or tax numbers. Platforms are required to furnish this data upon request by competent authorities, thereby enhancing the efficiency of investigation and enforcement procedures against online IP infringements.

Defining and handling unsafe drugs: Circular No. 30/2025/TT-BYT from the Ministry of Health introduces a definition of unsafe pharmaceuticals. This includes new provisions for drugs suspected of being counterfeit, substandard, or of dubious origin, along with clear reporting mechanisms for unsafe drug products and protocols for investigating and penalizing entities involved in their distribution.

IP violations removed from advertising law: The provision on advertisements that violate IP regulations is abolished from the revised Law on Advertising. According to the opinions of National Assembly members, the provision of separate regulations was deemed unnecessary, as all acts of infringing IP rights are already prohibited under the IP Law.

Final Thoughts

Vietnam’s 2025 legal reforms constitute a strategic leap toward modernized IP enforcement, and represent a bold and strategic recalibration of the nation’s IP enforcement regime. With the introduction of the specialized IP courts, stricter penalties, digitized workflows, and streamlined inspection processes, the IP landscape is set to become more transparent, accessible, and robustly deterrent. These developments underscore Vietnam’s commitment to strengthening its IP regime in line with international best practices and its obligations under global trade agreements.

This article first appeared in Managing Intellectual Property.

Related Professionals

Practices

Intellectual Property

Location

RELATED INSIGHTS​ 

September 24, 2026
Vietnam is implementing and developing a broad package of regulatory reforms that could reshape how IP, data, digital platforms, and product authenticity are regulated and enforced. Several of the key measures have been led by the Ministry of Public Security in its legislative and administrative capacity, as part of a broader government effort. The core reform package consists of four key legal instruments: proposed amendments to the Criminal Code, a proposed new Data Security Law, a draft Decree on Product Identification, Authentication and Traceability, and the newly enacted Decree No. 330/2026/ND-CP. These instruments include rules on criminal enforcement, data security, electronic identification, product identification and traceability, administrative violations, and cybersecurity sanctions. Combined, these measures will affect copyright enforcement, industrial property rights, trade secrets, AI training data, product provenance, online takedowns, valuation of counterfeit goods and electronic evidence. It is worth noting that, in addition to strengthening criminal penalties for IP crimes, Vietnam’s emerging regulatory framework increasingly treats infringement, data misuse, product authentication, and platform-enabled violations as interconnected regulatory and enforcement challenges. For rights holders and foreign investors, this could mean stronger tools against counterfeiting and online infringement, but also more compliance obligations around data, traceability, AI, platform controls and government-facing reporting. Expansion of Criminal IP Enforcement Proposed amendments to Article 225 of the Criminal Code would expand criminal copyright exposure beyond reproduction and distribution to cover large-scale commercial public performance and online communication of works, phonograms and video recordings. This is important because piracy is increasingly about streaming, unauthorized communication, and platform access models rather than physical copying. Aggravated copyright infringement could be subject to up to 10 years in prison for individuals and fines of up to VND 6 billion (about USD 228,300) for commercial legal entities. The amended Article 226 would expand criminal industrial property liability beyond
Read More
September 21, 2026
Thailand’s first-to-file trademark system has a serious vulnerability: it lacks both an explicit mechanism for refusing bad-faith registrations and any means of invalidating them in court after the five-year limitation period has expired. While brand owners worldwide confront trademark squatting, Thailand’s statutory silence stands out, particularly in light of AIPPI’s 2017 Resolution Q249, which recommended that every jurisdiction provide clear tools to address bad faith at all stages of the trademark lifecycle. Nearly a decade later, Thailand has yet to act. This article proposes a concrete reform blueprint, drawing on the legislative models of China, the United Kingdom, and the European Union. The Statutory Gap Under the Thai Trademark Act B.E. 2534, no provision expressly authorizes examiners to reject an application on grounds of bad faith. Section 8(10) addresses well-known marks but offers no relief where the targeted mark lacks well-known status. Practitioners have resorted to Section 8(9)—which bars marks “contrary to public order, morality, or public policy”—as a workaround. However, this provision was designed to address the characteristics of the mark itself, not the applicant’s intent. Thai Supreme Court decisions have split on whether it can reach bad-faith conduct, creating persistent legal uncertainty. The gap extends beyond examination. Civil actions to cancel a bad-faith registration must be brought within five years—a deadline that frequently expires before foreign brand owners discover the squatted mark. Cancellation through the Board of Trademarks remains available but is slow, costly, and subject to court appeal, leaving bad-faith registrations in force during protracted proceedings. The system effectively rewards squatters and penalizes legitimate owners. Lessons from International Best Practices Several major jurisdictions have already closed this gap. China’s 2019 amendment to Article 4 of the Trademark Law introduced an absolute ground for refusal: “bad faith trademark applications without intent to use shall be rejected.” Bad
Read More
September 14, 2026
Myanmar’s first-to-file trademark registration regime under the Trademark Law 2019—which became fully operational in April 2023—provides mark owners with enhanced legal protection compared with the country’s former system. Correspondingly, the current system imposes more rigorous statutory requirements for obtaining, maintaining, and enforcing rights in marks. In this first-to-file trademark registration system, however, evidence of use remains particularly significant, as it may establish acquired distinctiveness, support a claim that a mark is well-known, and strengthen the owner’s position in both registration and enforcement proceedings. Accordingly, it can be said that this framework is underpinned by three key concepts: distinctiveness, well-known status, and, importantly, use of the trademark. Trademark Distinctiveness Under the Trademark Law, signs that lack distinctiveness are generally ineligible for mark protection. These signs include generic terms, basic shapes, unstylized single letters or numerals, and signs that merely describe the kind, quality, quantity, intended purpose, value, geographical origin, production time, or other characteristics of the relevant goods or services. However, a mark that would otherwise be refused on distinctiveness or descriptiveness grounds may be registrable if it has acquired distinctiveness through its use prior to the filing date. To show this, the applicant must demonstrate that the mark became distinctive to relevant consumers through continuous, exclusive, and good-faith use in trade within Myanmar. The burden of proving acquired distinctiveness rests with the mark owner. Accordingly, sufficient evidence demonstrating both use of the mark and the level of consumer recognition attained should be prepared in advance. Well-Known Mark Criteria Myanmar’s Trademark Rules, which govern the substantive examination of mark registration applications, establish criteria for determining well-known marks, aligned with international standards. Where an applicant claims well-known status—whether to overcome a refusal on relative grounds or to oppose a third party’s registration—the registrar will assess the claim based on the following
Read More
September 14, 2026
On August 23, 2026, Vietnam’s National Assembly passed Law No. 11/2026/QH16, amending the country’s Customs Law with effect from March 1, 2027. The amendments represent a substantial reform of Vietnam’s customs-based intellectual property enforcement regime. The reforms come amid considerable external pressure. In its 2026 Special 301 review, the US Trade Representative (USTR) designated Vietnam a “priority foreign country,” citing widespread counterfeiting, weak border enforcement, limited ex officio customs powers, and the absence of controls over goods in transit. Vietnam’s legislative response signals a commitment to bringing its border enforcement practices into line with international expectations. For IP rights holders operating in or through Vietnam, the amended law introduces several tools that substantially strengthen enforcement options at the border. Closing the Transit Gap One of the most consequential amendments is the extension of IP-related customs enforcement to goods in transit. Previously, Vietnam’s customs regime applied IP controls only to goods being imported or exported, a gap the USTR had specifically identified as enabling infringing goods to pass through Vietnamese ports with impunity. Vietnam’s geographic position as a logistics hub for Southeast Asia means that substantial volumes of goods transit its ports and free-trade zones. Extending enforcement to cover these shipments brings Vietnam closer to the standard set by the EU’s customs enforcement regulation and addresses a longstanding concern of multinational brand owners whose goods are frequently counterfeited in the region. Strengthened Suspension and Ex Officio Powers The amended law introduces a dual-track suspension mechanism (Article 73(2)). Customs authorities will suspend clearance upon request by an IP rights holder (or authorized representative) who provides evidence of IP ownership, evidence of infringement, and a financial guarantee. Customs can now proactively suspend clearance on an ex officio basis if, during inspection and monitoring, they discover “clear grounds” to suspect that imported, exported,
Read More