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

August 25, 2023

New Decree Guides Vietnam’s IP Law on Industrial Property Rights

Subscribe to Updates

On August 23, 2023, the Vietnamese government issued Decree No. 65/2023/ND-CP detailing and guiding the implementation of some articles of the 2022 Intellectual Property Law with respect to the establishment and protection of industrial property rights (“Decree 65”). Decree 65 took immediate effect upon issuance, replacing Decree No. 103/2006/ND-CP and a part of Decree No. 105/2006/ND-CP, and provides long-awaited, necessary guidance for implementation of the IP Law, which took effect on January 1, 2023. Some of the most critical provisions of Decree 65 include the following:

 

Establishment of Industrial Property Rights

Procedures for Establishment: The procedures for the establishment of industrial property rights are set out in Decree 65, rather than in a lower-level circular. These include the procedures related to PCT applications for inventions and Madrid applications for trademarks, and the (newly added) procedures related to Hague applications for industrial designs. Decree 65 also provides the details of the procedure for security control of inventions, including an annex listing the technical fields deemed to affect national security.

The decree confirms that registration certificates can be issued in electronic form and in paper form. However, hard copy registration will only be issued under explicit request in the application. It also provides various new forms, including application forms for patents, designs, integrated circuits, and geographical indications, among others.

Right Holder, Content, and Limitation of Rights: Further details are provided on the rights and responsibilities of organizations and individuals who use geographical indications. Decree 65 also details the procedure for compensation of patent owners due to the delay in granting marketing authorization of pharmaceutical products, stipulated in Article 131a of the IP Law.

Secret Inventions: Decree 65 provides details for identifying and processing patent applications for secret inventions as well as procedures for decodifying inventions filed as secret inventions.

Amendment: Decree 65 makes clear that for amendment of a trademark specimen, only minor disclaimed elements can be removed, and only if such removal does not alter the distinctiveness of the registered mark. The decree also simplifies the documents required for amendment of trademark registration.

Assignment: Decree 65 adds a new provision regarding the limitation to the transfer of trademark rights that may cause confusion as to the properties or origin of the goods bearing the trademark.

Opposition: While both oppositions and third-party opinions can be submitted against national applications, there is no opposition procedure under Decree 65 for Madrid applications designating Vietnam. Only the third party opinion scheme is available for the application’s examination, as a source of reference.

 

Enforcement of Industrial Property Rights

Determination of Acts, Nature, and Extent of Infringement: Decree 65 introduces amendments to the definition of acts conducted on the internet considered as infringement in Vietnam with greater specificity. The grounds to determine the factors that constitute the infringement of patent, integrated circuit, industrial design, trademark, geographical indication, tradename, or geographical indication have been extended to include the Extract of the National Registrar of Industrial Property. The factors that constitute the infringement of trademark, tradename, and geographical indication have been amended to provide more specific details.

Determination of Damage: Decree 65 provides detailed grounds for the determination of property damage, including: decline in income and profit; loss of business opportunity; and reasonable costs to prevent and remedy damage. The decree also introduces detailed grounds for the determination of moral damage, reflecting a greater emphasis of the Vietnamese government on the value of moral rights.

Process of Handling IP Infringement: The handling of infringing goods is now implemented either upon the decision of the relevant authorities or upon the request of the owner of the IP rights. This brings an additional avenue for action, rather than the implementation of such measures solely at the discretion of the authorities.

The criteria for applying the method of distributing or utilizing infringing goods for non-commercial purposes have been revised to include additional requirements for the goods in question. The measure of confiscation has been eliminated.

Procedure for Control of Imported and Exported Goods Related to Industrial Property: Decree 65 adds specific details regarding the authority, order, and procedures for proactively suspending customs procedures of goods that show clear signs of infringement.

Assessment of Infringement: Decree 65 sets up new regulations on the procedure of conducting IP assessment (expert opinion).

 

Before Decree 65 was issued, in order to solve some issues in implementing the amended IP Law, the IP Office had to provide guidance for its internal procedures as well as information for IP practitioners to handle appropriately. It is expected that Decree 65 will definitively address these issues.

Related Professionals

Practices

Intellectual Property

Location

RELATED INSIGHTS​ 

October 23, 2025
Myanmar’s customs authorities have introduced new procedures allowing copyright holders to protect their intellectual property from infringing goods at the border. The Ministry of Finance and Revenue issued Notification No. 107/2025 on September 11, 2025, establishing rules and requirements for customs recordation under the Copyright Law of 2019. The notification includes eight official forms for copyright-related customs matters—three for applicants and five for the Customs Department. This was followed by Customs Department Announcement No. 1/2025, dated September 29, 2025, which details the security required for suspended goods. Customs recordation provides a proactive mechanism for rights holders to prevent importation of pirated works. By registering their works with the Customs Department, rights holders gain access to enhanced border enforcement measures, empowering customs officials to identify and intercept pirated goods before they enter the market. While copyright protection in Myanmar arises automatically under the Copyright Law of 2019, a registration certificate for copyright or related rights is required to apply for customs recordation. Customs Recordation Registered copyright and related rights holders can apply directly or through authorized legal representatives for customs recordation to prevent cross-border trade in pirated works. Applications must use the prescribed form and include all supporting documentary evidence specified in the form. The Customs Department will notify applicants within 15 days of receiving their application. Each recordation remains valid for two years from the date of acceptance and may be renewed for successive two-year periods by submitting a renewal application at least 30 days before expiration. Rights holders whose works are recorded must notify the Customs Department within five days of any amendment or withdrawal of information at the Intellectual Property Department. Suspension Orders Registered copyright and related rights holders can request a suspension order to prevent release of pirated goods into free circulation, regardless of whether they
Read More
October 3, 2025
In Thailand, the rise in online intellectual property infringement has prompted authorities to strengthen enforcement efforts, including the use of website-blocking orders under Section 20(3) of the Computer Crime Act B.E. 2560 (2017) (CCA). This provision authorizes the Ministry of Digital Economy and Society (MDES), with court approval, to block or remove computer data that constitutes a criminal offence under IP law. Since its implementation, the procedure has undergone several developments, which is an encouraging sign of progress. Website-blocking procedure In practice, website-blocking orders under Section 20(3) of the CCA are primarily used for copyright and trademark infringement. While such orders are legally applicable to patent infringement, their use remains challenging due to the difficulty of proving infringement through administrative procedures. The website-blocking procedure begins when an IP owner identifies online infringing content. For copyright infringement, which is considered a compoundable offence, the IP owner is required to first file a police report with the specialized police unit known as the Economic Crime Suppression Division (ECD) prior to filing the website-blocking application with the Department of Intellectual Property (DIP). For trademark infringement cases, the application can be filed directly with the DIP without a prior police report. The DIP reviews the evidence and, if infringement is confirmed, forwards it to the MDES for further consideration. If the case is deemed valid, the MDES requests a court order to block the infringing website. Once granted, the MDES notifies the internet service providers (ISPs) to block access to the specified website. Website blocking procedure in Thailand Recent advancements in website-blocking actions Seamless collaboration through digital integration. Thailand has made significant progress in digitizing its website-blocking procedures to improve efficiency and transparency. At present, all website-blocking applications and supporting evidence must be submitted in electronic format. These systems have significantly reduced processing
Read More
September 24, 2025
Online shopping in Thailand is more accessible than ever, with global platforms, local social media shops, and entertainment-driven social commerce enabling instant purchases. However, this convenience comes with rising concerns over digital intellectual property (IP) infringement, including counterfeit goods, pirated content, and unauthorized brand usage. At first glance, online platforms appear to offer quick solutions. Most major e-commerce sites, social media channels, and social commerce platforms provide “notice and takedown” systems, where IP owners can file complaints and request the removal of listings that infringe IP rights, such as trademarks and copyrights. These tools are certainly useful, as seeing a fake product vanish from a platform feels like progress. But the reality is less reassuring. The counterfeit goods themselves remain in warehouses, markets, or shops, ready to be resold. Sellers whose accounts are taken down often return within days under new names or accounts. In other words, a takedown is like cutting weeds without pulling out the roots: they always grow back. While notice and takedown tools are widely available and can be managed internally by most IP owners, their impact is often short-lived. IP owners seeking more effective, lasting protection need to take a more strategic and multilayered approach. The same applies to online piracy. Unauthorized streaming websites that offer free access to movies, TV shows, or sports broadcasts have become widespread in Thailand. To combat this, rightsholders can request website blocking under the Computer Crime Act, through the Ministry of Digital Economy and Society and the courts. Once requests are approved, internet service providers are ordered to block access to infringing sites. Blocking orders can be effective in disrupting large-scale piracy operations, but they also face limitations—pirate sites frequently reappear under new domains. Strategic Protection Whether the infringing material is physical counterfeit goods or intangible streaming content,
Read More
September 4, 2025
On June 6, 2025, the Superior People’s Court in Hanoi overturned a non-use cancellation decision by the Intellectual Property Office of Vietnam, a rare and impactful occurrence. In a ruling that may help clarify the enforcement of Vietnam’s IP Law, the court held that valid trademark use can be established through commercial arrangements where the brand owner maintains actual control over the use of the mark, and is not confined to relationships governed by a so-called “formal license agreement. Background: Cross-Border Use, Local Challenge A Singapore company owns a well-known brand of consumer products that has gained recognition across Southeast Asia. In recent years, the brand has been targeted by several unauthorized trademark filings in Vietnam. In one such instance, a local Vietnamese trading company—previously linked to the production and export of counterfeit goods to neighboring countries—filed a non-use cancellation against the Singapore company’s mark and sought to register it under its own name. If the cancellation had been upheld, it would have enabled a complete hijacking of the brand. The IP holder operates in Vietnam through a structured cross-border supply chain. Under an agreement between two related foreign entities, one of which managed regional operations, production orders were placed through a designated Vietnamese company. While the Vietnamese manufacturer was not a party to the agreement, its role in using the mark was recognized and governed by internal and commercial documentation. The Vietnamese manufacturer lawfully obtained the necessary permits, regulatory approvals, and customs clearances for producing the goods in Vietnam. These activities were supported by banking records and internal communications, evidencing active, continuous use of the mark in Vietnam. However, the IP Office concluded that this use did not meet the statutory criteria because the Vietnamese manufacturer did not have a direct license agreement with the brand owner, as
Read More