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​ 

July 24, 2026
As food innovation continues to accelerate, manufacturers are increasingly introducing ingredients derived from new sources, produced using novel technologies, or lacking a significant history of human consumption. While these innovations create new opportunities for the food industry, they also raise important questions regarding consumer safety. For this reason, many jurisdictions, including Thailand, the European Union, Australia and New Zealand, Canada, and Singapore, require a premarket safety assessment for novel food ingredients before they can be placed on the market. The objective of this assessment is to ensure that each ingredient is safe for its intended use and level of consumption, does not present toxicological, allergenic, microbiological, or nutritional concerns, and will not mislead consumers. Scientific authorities typically evaluate the ingredient’s identity, manufacturing process, composition, specifications, anticipated dietary exposure, toxicological information, nutritional impact, and history of use before determining whether it can be marketed. Against this background, the Thai Food and Drug Administration (FDA) recently took an important step toward improving regulatory transparency by publishing, for the first time, a consolidated public list of substances that have successfully completed the Thai FDA’s safety assessment process, including substances determined to be novel foods and those determined not to fall within the novel food category. The list identifies the approved substances, the corresponding manufacturers or importers, approval dates, and the approved conditions of use. Although the publication does not change the existing legal framework governing novel food approvals, it provides businesses with greater visibility into the Thai FDA’s regulatory precedents and the types of substances that have previously been accepted through the safety assessment process. The full announcement is available on the Thai FDA’s website. As the list is now publicly available, it also provides useful insight into the types of substances that have successfully completed the Thai FDA’s safety assessment process.
Read More
July 24, 2026
Indonesia has updated its fee framework for intellectual property (IP)-related government services, with implications for IP owners, licensees, lenders, digital platforms, and businesses operating in the country. Government Regulation No. 30 of 2026 on Types and Tariffs of Non-Tax State Revenue Applicable to the Ministry of Law (GR 30/2026) was promulgated on July 2, 2026, and will take effect on August 1, 2026. Key Takeaways GR 30/2026, which replaces the relevant IP service fees under Government Regulation No. 45 of 2024, reorganizes the fee schedule into separate categories for copyright, industrial designs, patents, layout designs of integrated circuits, trade secrets, trademarks, geographical indications, IP enforcement, and other categories. The most commercially relevant changes include a new copyright recordation tariff exemption for songs and music, higher fees for several trademark and geographical indication services, new IP enforcement service fees, and a new fee type for registration of fiduciary security over IP rights objects. In addition, this is the first major update for trademark fees in approximately 10 years. GR 30/2026 is significant not only as a fee update but also as a further indication of Indonesia’s increasing recognition of IP as a financeable commercial asset. By expressly assigning fees to the registration of fiduciary security over IP rights objects, the regulation places IP-backed collateral filings within the Ministry of Law’s administrative service framework. While GR 30/2026 does not create a new secured-transactions regime, this development is relevant for lenders, borrowers, and IP owners structuring financing arrangements secured by trademarks, patents, copyrights, industrial designs, or other registrable IP rights in Indonesia. Copyright: New Fee Exemption for Songs and Music Recordation For copyright, GR 30/2026 creates a fee-exempt category for recordation of works or related-rights products for songs or music, while maintaining a separate category for other works and related-rights products. It
Read More
July 21, 2026
Thailand’s Ministry of Digital Economy and Society (MDES) published a notification establishing an expedited court-ordered takedown mechanism for online content in cases of “urgent necessity.” The notification, which was issued on July 17, 2026, under the Computer Crime Act B.E. 2550 (2007), as amended, took effect the following day. It significantly expands the categories of content subject to rapid government-initiated removal. Content Categories Subject to Takedown The notification defines “urgent necessity” (section 20, paragraph 5, of the Computer Crime Act) as circumstances where any delay in suppressing computer data may impact national security, religion, the monarchy, good morals, social culture, or public order. In this regard, it establishes four broad categories of content: Computer Crime Act offenses. National security offenses. IP and other criminal offenses, where it is contrary to public order or good morals and a competent officer has requested its suppression. Content contrary to public order or good morals, a broad residual category encompassing 14 subcategories approved by the Computer Data Screening Committee. The fourth category is the most expansive. Its 14 subcategories include: Content defaming, mocking, satirizing, or devaluing the monarchy. Online gambling advertising or facilitation. Offering illegal firearms for sale. Offering baraku (hookah) products or e-cigarettes for sale. Offering cannabis inflorescences or processed cannabis products for sale. Advertising or soliciting prostitution. Content inciting violence, hatred, or social division. Unauthorized overseas employment advertising. Offering boiled kratom juice for sale. Online sale or advertising of alcoholic beverages. Content satirizing or degrading Buddhism. Money lending at interest rates exceeding legally prescribed limits. Advertising or disseminating information about surrogacy services. Forgery of documents, cards, or official documents. Enforcement Procedure In cases of urgent necessity, a competent official assigned by the MDES permanent secretary must file a petition with supporting evidence to the court with jurisdiction, requesting an order to
Read More
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