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

December 17, 2025

Vietnam Enacts Landmark IP Law Amendments

Subscribe to Updates

Vietnam’s National Assembly approved wide-ranging amendments to the Intellectual Property (IP) Law on December 10, 2025, marking one of the most significant overhauls of the country’s IP regime in recent years.

The changes, which supplement and refine existing provisions, are designed to align Vietnam’s framework more closely with international standards while addressing practical challenges faced by rights holders and practitioners. The amendments will come into force on April 1, 2026.

The most notable changes are detailed below.

  • Recognition of partial and nonphysical industrial designs: Industrial design protection has been broadened to cover partial designs and nonphysical forms (class 32), explicitly extending rights to parts of products that are not independently circulated as well as digital and intangible product appearances. The law clarifies that the external appearances of nonphysical products are protected industrial designs, and circulation of digital copies of any part of that appearance will be treated as an act of using the industrial design. The provision on the industrial applicability of industrial designs has also been amended accordingly to include the uniform reproduction of nonphysical products in cyberspace.
  • Resolving conflicts between overlapping rights: The IP Law provides a safeguard against conflicts when a single subject matter is protected by multiple IP rights. Where overlapping rights exist, the later-arising right will be terminated if its exercise interferes with the normal exploitation of an earlier right. The decision to terminate such a later right rests with the court.
  • Use of published data for AI training: Organizations and individuals may use lawfully published and publicly accessible documents and data for scientific research, testing, and AI system training. Such use must not unreasonably prejudice the rights or legitimate interests of authors or IP rights holders. Where the documents and data fall under copyright or related rights protection, their use must also comply with government-issued regulations.
  • IP as a commercial asset: IP holders may use their rights in civil, commercial, and investment transactions, aligning with broader legislation on science, technology, innovation, and asset management. The state encourages exploitation of IP rights (e.g., as capital contributions or as collateral for loans under investment, enterprise, and credit laws).
  • Exclusions from copyright: Ideas, slogans, and titles of works are expressly excluded from copyright protection.
  • Elimination of certain certificate timelines: The law eliminates fixed deadlines for reissuing lost or damaged copyright and related-rights certificates, as well as for updating registrations with revisions to information, such as the rights holder’s name or the title of the work. Rights holders must now rely on general procedural guidance rather than statutory timelines.
  • Expanded invalidation powers: Vietnam’s copyright authority is now empowered to invalidate registration certificates if it determines that an application contained inaccurate, false, or misleading information. Previously, such invalidations could only be triggered by requests from third parties who uncovered the inaccuracies.
  • Grace period for industrial design novelty: An industrial design will retain its novelty even if disclosed through applications or registrations published by the competent authority, provided the publication was unlawful or originated from a party not entitled to file. This safeguard is intended to shield legitimate applicants from losing rights due to administrative errors or unauthorized disclosures, and to align with the law’s provision on the novelty grace period for inventions.
  • Institutional rights over state-funded R&D: Organizations assigned to manage, use, and own the results of scientific, technological, and innovation tasks funded by the state budget are now explicitly entitled to register patents, industrial designs, and layout designs arising from such projects. This change consolidates institutional rights over IP created through public investment, aligning with broader efforts to clarify ownership in government-funded research and development.
  • Suspension of substantive examination: The IP Office may temporarily suspend substantive examination of industrial property applications in two scenarios:
    • At the applicant’s request to allow time for filing a petition to invalidate or cancel a trademark registration certificate under the conditions set out in the law, with examination to resume once the petition is resolved.
    • Upon court issuance of a notice of jurisdiction in relation to a lawsuit filed by a third party concerning the right to register an industrial property object or a trademark alleged to have been filed in bad faith, with examination to restart once a legally effective judgment or decision is rendered.
  • Simplified power of attorney rules: The amended IP Law clarifies that notarization and certification are not required for power of attorney statements authorizing a Vietnamese representative to file complaints with the IP Office on behalf of foreign individuals not residing in Vietnam or foreign organizations without a local presence.
  • Technical testing deadlines for plant varieties: Applicants that conduct technical testing independently must begin the test within 24 months of the application being accepted as valid. If self-testing has not commenced within this 24‑month period, the application is considered withdrawn at the end of that timeframe. This amendment introduces stricter timelines to ensure that plant variety applications progress without delay.
  • Digital platform requirements: Digital platform operators must implement measures to protect intellectual property rights online, in accordance with legislation on intellectual property, e‑commerce, cybersecurity, and other relevant laws.
  • Courts and administrative authorities: Courts and administrative officials empowered under the Law on Handling Administrative Violations have authority to deal with acts of IP infringement. Administrative authorities may also impose preventive and safeguard measures to ensure effective handling of violations, in line with the Law on Handling Administrative Violations. The amendments remove the previous detailed listing of specific agencies (such as police, Market Surveillance Agency, Customs, and People’s Committees), instead referring more generally to “administrative authorities.” This broader phrasing expands the potential range of officials who may exercise enforcement powers.
  • Revocation of examiner credentials: Under the new amendments, if an individual holding an intellectual property examiner card no longer meets the prescribed eligibility criteria, the competent authority is vested with the power to revoke that card. This measure underscores the importance of maintaining professional standards and compliance within the IP examination process.
  • Civil enforcement measures: The amended IP Law introduces additional civil remedies aimed at curbing IP infringement. Authorities may now order the destruction of counterfeit trademarked goods and pirated products, except in limited cases defined by the government. Furthermore, raw materials, components, and equipment used to manufacture such goods must either be destroyed or repurposed for noncommercial use, provided this does not impair the rights holder’s ability to exploit their IP.
  • IP enforcement online: The amendments broaden enforcement powers in online environments, allowing infringing content, accounts, websites, and applications to be removed, deleted, or disabled to prevent further violations.
  • Compensation limits: The recent amendment significantly revises compensation thresholds for IP infringement cases. The cap on material damages is now VND 1 billion, double the former VND 500 million cap. For moral damages, courts may now award compensation within a range of 10–100 times the basic wage prescribed by the government, depending on the severity of the harm.

Key Amendments to Statutory Timelines

The recent amendments to the IP Law have shortened several procedural deadlines under Vietnam’s IP framework:

  • Publication of decisions: Decisions relating to the issuance, termination, cancellation, or amendment of industrial property rights certificates will be published in Vietnam’s official gazette within 30 days of issuance, halving the previous 60-day period.
  • Disclosure of trademark applications: Trademark applications are made public and disclosed upon being received by the IP Office.
  • Publication of applications: Industrial design, trademark, and geographical indication applications are published in the gazette within one month of being deemed valid. Patent applications are published in the 19th month from the filing date or the priority date, or from the date the application is deemed valid.
  • Opposition deadlines: For patents, oppositions may be filed within six months of the date of publication, or within three months if the application is subject to accelerated examination. For industrial designs and trademarks, oppositions must be filed within three months of publication.
  • Patent substantive examination requests: The time limit for requesting substantive examination of a patent application has been shortened from 42 months to 36 months from the priority date or the filing date (if no priority is claimed).
  • Substantive examination: For patents, the authority’s substantive examination is to be completed within 12 months. For trademarks, industrial designs, and geographical indications, the substantive examination is to be completed within five months. Applicants may request accelerated substantive examination for patent and trademark applications within three months of the applications’ publication date.

Applications submitted before the amended IP Law’s effective date (April 1, 2026) will be processed according to the provisions of the law in force at the time of submission. However, the following procedures will proceed according to the provisions of the 2025 amendments:

  • Formality examination for the applications that have not yet been accepted as valid by the IP Office.
  • Opposition and substantive examination timelines for applications published following the effective date of the IP Law.

Conclusion

Vietnam’s 2025 IP Law amendments mark a decisive turning point in the country’s IP regime. By expanding protection to nonphysical designs, clarifying ownership of state‑funded innovation, tightening administrative and judicial enforcement, and extending remedies into the digital sphere, the reforms demonstrate Vietnam’s ambition to align more closely with international standards while addressing domestic enforcement challenges.

Related Professionals

Practices

Intellectual Property

Location

RELATED INSIGHTS​ 

August 20, 2026
As part of its membership in Lex Mundi, Tilleke & Gibbins has released the latest edition of its Guide to Doing Business in Thailand, providing an overview of the legal, regulatory, and commercial considerations for companies establishing or expanding operations in Thailand. The 2026 edition offers practical insight into the country’s business environment, investment framework, and operational requirements. The guide covers a wide range of topics relevant to foreign and domestic investors, including: Investment incentives and promotion schemes Financial facilities and banking regulations Exchange controls and money transfers Import and export regulations Business structures and incorporation options Requirements for establishing a business Operational and compliance considerations Business cessation and insolvency procedures Employment and labor laws Taxation Immigration and visa requirements Prepared by Tilleke & Gibbins lawyers across multiple practice areas, the publication outlines key aspects of doing business in Thailand, including foreign investment restrictions, regulatory compliance obligations, corporate structures, employment requirements, and recent legal and economic developments affecting investors. The publication forms part of Lex Mundi’s Country Guides series, a global collection of jurisdiction-specific reference materials prepared by member firms around the world. Together, these guides help companies evaluate opportunities, compare regulatory environments, and plan international business activities across multiple markets. The full Guide to Doing Business in Thailand 2026 is available through the button below.
Read More
August 13, 2026
Modern agricultural machinery is no longer purely mechanical but instead technology dependent. Modern tractors, harvesters, and other farm equipment increasingly incorporate embedded software, electronic control units, sensors, and digital diagnostic systems. While such technologies enhance efficiency, productivity, and precision farming, they also affect the manner of equipment repair and maintenance. As a result, farmers and independent repair providers may have little practical choice but to rely on authorized dealers, even for routine maintenance and repairs. Section 36 of Thailand’s Patent Act reflects the principle that the authorized sale of a patented invention usually exhausts the exclusive right of the patent owner over the specific product. This means that upon legal sale of the patented product, it can typically be used or resold without further authorization from the patent holder. This principle is relatively straightforward when applied to traditional mechanical equipment. Ownership of a machine ordinarily carries with it the practical ability to diagnose faults, replace worn parts, and restore the equipment to working order. Modern agricultural machinery, however, increasingly depends on embedded software, proprietary diagnostic systems, firmware updates, and other digital resources that may remain under the control of the manufacturer or patent holder. This tension lies within the “right to repair” debate. In the United States, on July 8, 2026, the Federal Trade Commission and five states announced a settlement with Deere & Company resolving allegations that Deere had unlawfully restricted farmers’ and independent repair providers’ ability to repair their equipment. Under the terms of the settlement, for the next ten years, Deere must provide repair resources, including software capabilities, on terms equivalent to those provided to authorized dealers. The Deere settlement highlights that the nature of ownership is changing, but legal concepts have not kept pace. Traditional patent-law concepts, including patent exhaustion, were developed with physical products
Read More
August 10, 2026
Thailand has finalized its social media KYC (“know your customer”) rules under Notification of the Electronic Transactions Commission on Measures to Prevent Technological Crimes for Social Media Service Providers (No. 2), which was published in the Government Gazette on May 5, 2026, and will take effect on November 1, 2026. While an early draft of the notification proposed requiring social media platforms to arrange identification of every user account, the final notification is significantly more targeted, focusing on paid online advertising and advertiser identity verification. Though the regulatory initiative primarily aims to combat online fraud and technology-related crimes, it also has important consequences for intellectual property enforcement, because the verified platform records that will be generated under the new requirements can help IP rights holders to identify anonymous online infringers. Key Regulatory Mandates The notification requires social media service providers to verify the identity of advertisers before their paid advertisements are published and disseminated in Thailand through social media, regardless of whether the advertising fees come from the advertisers or third parties. Verification of an advertiser is valid for one year, after which verification would have to be performed again before the platform could publish additional paid advertisements from the advertiser. Permitted verification methods are specified under the notification. A platform may verify an advertiser by checking identity evidence and confirming the connection between the advertiser and that identity evidence, with the notification giving facial comparison against certain government-issued identity documents as an example. Alternatively, platforms may verify advertisers through a digital identity verification and authentication system with an identity-proofing assurance level not lower than the level prescribed by Thailand’s Electronic Transactions Commission. The notification further requires platforms to retain only the advertiser’s information necessary to identify the advertiser, beginning from the start of the advertising activity and for
Read More
August 6, 2026
Introduction: A Trademark Paradox in Sustainable Packaging Walk into any Thai supermarket, and the label-free water bottle is no longer a novelty. Thailand’s packaging market, valued at approximately USD 15.68 billion in 2025, is shifting toward minimalist, plastic-light designs as ESG pressures reshape how brands present their products. The country generated roughly 5.68 million tons of plastic waste in 2021, with a recycling rate of only 19 percent, and regulators are now considering rules that would allow label-free bottled water relying on embossing, laser printing, or QR codes instead of wrap-around labels. As packaging itself becomes the brand identifier, a paradox emerges: designs built to say the least often struggle hardest for protection under Thai intellectual property law. The Trademark Barrier: When Shape Is Not Enough Section 7, paragraph 2(10) of the Thai Trademark Act deems a shape distinctive only if it is not the natural form of the goods, is not necessary to achieve a technical result, and does not add value to the goods. The Department of Intellectual Property’s 2022 examination guidelines apply this test conservatively, as the following examples illustrate. A plain water bottle relying on subtle contours to signal its brand is typically read as just another bottle, not a source identifier. Acquired distinctiveness offers a theoretical escape route, but it demands extensive evidence of sales, advertising, and consumer recognition—an especially heavy burden for new entrants whose minimalist packaging has not yet achieved market prominence. The result is a structural bias against precisely the design innovation that sustainability goals are meant to encourage. Design Patents: A Partial, Imperfect Substitute Design patent protection, covering a product’s shape, configuration, or ornamentation, appears to offer an alternative route. In practice, it is constrained by the same forces driving the minimalist trend. Because many brands converge on similar solutions—clear
Read More