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 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
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