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​ 

July 15, 2026
Ambush marketing refers to a strategy in which a business associates itself with an event, campaign, or brand without paying for official sponsorship rights. The tactic is most visible in sports, concerts, and festivals, where official sponsors have invested substantially for exclusivity. Ambush marketers may use suggestive wording, event-themed imagery, athlete endorsements, venue-adjacent promotions, or social media campaigns implying a commercial connection with the event. Common Forms of Ambush Marketing Ambush marketing typically takes one of the following forms: Direct ambushing: using event names, logos, or mascots suggesting authorization Coattail ambushing: sponsoring an athlete or broadcaster connected with the event Subtle ambushing: themed advertising, venue-adjacent campaigns, or similar visual cues The legal analysis in each case turns on whether the marketing crosses from permissible event-based advertising into infringement, passing off, deception, or wrongful exploitation of goodwill, and the risk assessment is necessarily fact-specific. Thailand has no dedicated ambush marketing statute, so legality depends on execution. A campaign that merely comments on a public event may be permissible, but one that uses protected marks, creates consumer confusion, misrepresents sponsorship status, or makes unsubstantiated claims may trigger liability under various Thai laws, as laid out below. Ambush Marketing and Thailand’s Trademark Act The Trademark Act B.E. 2534 (1991) is the primary tool for addressing campaigns that use registered trademarks, event names, logos, mascots, or confusingly similar signs. The law gives registered trademark owners the exclusive right to use their mark for registered goods, and infringement risk arises when a nonsponsor uses an event mark or a confusingly similar sign in advertising. Even referential or playful use may create liability if it causes public confusion as to sponsorship or commercial connection. The law also preserves passing-off claims for unregistered marks. This matters because event names, taglines, or mascots may not always be
Read More
July 13, 2026
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
Read More
July 9, 2026
Recycling, upcycling, and refill-packaging models are now widely promoted as ways to reduce waste, lower carbon emissions, and respond to consumer demand for sustainable products. However, complications arise when these environmentally driven trends intersect with intellectual property law—particularly where reused or altered packaging continues to display third parties’ registered trademarks. Adding to this complexity, Thailand’s draft Sustainable Packaging Management Act aims to introduce new environmental compliance obligations that businesses must navigate alongside existing trademark concerns. Recycling and upcycling packaging may infringe trademark rights, especially in cases not protected by the first-sale doctrine—the principle that a trademark owner’s rights over a particular mark-bearing product end once the owner first sells it. Furthermore, even refill packaging carries legal risk due to specific statutory prohibitions under Thai law. Compounding these challenges, the draft Sustainable Packaging Management Act will impose extended producer responsibility (EPR) obligations on manufacturers and brand owners, requiring them to manage packaging throughout its lifecycle. These overlapping legal frameworks could deter manufacturers from pursuing ESG-aligned business models unless businesses understand how to navigate both trademark and environmental requirements. Under Thai law, this issue remains uncertain because the Trademark Act does not expressly codify the first sale doctrine, also known as the exhaustion of trademark rights. Generally, this doctrine provides that once a trademark owner has lawfully sold goods bearing its trademark, the owner’s right to control further resale of those particular goods is exhausted. The rationale is that the owner has already received commercial benefit from the first authorized sale; therefore, the purchaser should be free to resell or otherwise dispose of the goods. Although the doctrine is not expressly codified in the Trademark Act, Thai courts have recognized it in relation to genuine goods and parallel imports, as seen in a Supreme Court Judgment No. 2817/2543 in which the
Read More
July 6, 2026
Indonesia’s regulation on reporting online intellectual property (IP) infringement provides comprehensive procedural guidance for IP rights holders and their licensees in reporting online infringement complaints. Issued in December 2025 by the Ministry of Law as Regulation No. 47 of 2025 regarding Handling of Intellectual Property Infringement Reports in Electronic Systems, this regulation covers all types of IP rights. It also specifies documentation when reporting infringement, and lays out the procedures for examination, verification, and enforcement actions. Submission of Complaints Complainants may submit reports through the online system of the Directorate General of Intellectual Property (DGIP) or in person at the DGIP office. Complaints may also be filed through an authorized proxy. Under the regulation, complainants are required to provide the following information and documents: Personal details of the complainant; Brief description of the protected work or subject matter (i.e., type of IP and name or address of the infringing website, portal, account, or application, or a link to the location of the infringing content); Complete description of the alleged infringement; Certificate of registration or recordal of the relevant IP; Recordal of IP license agreement, if any; and Other supporting evidence. Verification and Examination Process Upon receiving a complaint, the responsible formality officer may request clarification or additional supporting documents. In the latter case, the complainant must then submit the necessary administrative documents within 14 days of the notification date. Once the documentation is deemed complete and sufficient, the case will be formally registered. Subsequently, the DGIP will establish a verification team to handle online IP violations, which will include the Civil Servant Investigator (PPNS), the Ministry of Communication and Digital Affairs, experts with relevant expertise in IP, and representatives from related associations such as AVISI (Indonesian Video Streaming Association). After examining the report, the team will prepare the Minutes
Read More