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​ 

June 30, 2026
Customs recordation is an enforcement mechanism in Myanmar that enables intellectual property (IP) rights holders to seek prevention of the cross-border movement of infringing goods. The enactment of Myanmar’s IP laws in 2019 has enabled customs recordation for registered marks and copyrights under the Trademark Law 2019 and the Copyright Law 2019. By contrast, the Patent Law 2019 and the Industrial Design Law 2019 do not provide a practical framework for customs recordation, and accordingly such rights are not subject to the customs recordation regime. Under the Trademark Law 2019, rights holders may apply for customs recordation and may also ask the Customs Department to suspend the release of goods suspected of bearing counterfeit marks. Likewise, the Copyright Law 2019 allows for customs intervention in relation to pirated works. These provisions reflect Myanmar’s gradual alignment with international standards on border measures, although the implementation framework remains at a relatively early stage of development. Customs Recordation Pursuant to the Trademark Law 2019 and the Copyright Law 2019, the relevant authorities have issued customs rules concerning the protection of registered marks and copyrights. In practice, the process generally begins with the submission of an application to the Customs Department together with supporting documentation. This typically includes proof of registration in Myanmar; details of the rights holder, applicant, and any authorized representative; and a comprehensive description of the genuine goods. Product identification materials—such as photographs, packaging samples, and distinguishing features—are particularly important in helping customs officers identify suspected infringing goods. A recordation remains valid for two years from the date of approval. It may be renewed for additional two-year terms, provided that the renewal application is filed within the thirty days prior to expiry for marks and up to thirty days in advance of the expiry date for copyrights, in accordance with
Read More
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