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​ 

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
June 10, 2026
In March 2026, the Intellectual Property Office of Vietnam (IP Office) issued a decision refusing a trademark application after considering an opposition based primarily on copyright grounds. The outcome is noteworthy because the foreign brand owner had neither trademark registrations nor applications in Vietnam at the time the opposition was filed, and the IP Office has historically applied a stringent approach to oppositions relying on copyright. The Opposition Maurten is a well-known Swedish sports nutrition brand recognized globally for its innovative hydrogel technology, which is designed to help endurance athletes fuel more effectively without gastrointestinal discomfort. The brand’s distinctive logo is characterized by clean lines and a bold black-and-white color scheme, and has long been associated with the company’s performance products. The brand’s logo is displayed above. An identical mark was filed for registration by a Vietnamese trademark squatter. In 2023, a Vietnamese individual filed an application for registration of an identical mark (Application No. 4-2023-38668), a practice commonly observed in Vietnam as trademark squatting. The brand owner engaged Tilleke & Gibbins to assist with strategy and filing an opposition to the mark. At the time, Maurten had no trademark rights or meaningful use in Vietnam, and global marketing data showed only modest figures without any local presence. Thus, to convince the IP Office to refuse the squatter’s application, instead of relying on trademark rights or use evidence, the opposition strategy centered on the copyright protection of the logo itself, as copyright arises automatically in Vietnam upon creation of the work and does not require registration. (It is worth noting, however, that the IP Office has traditionally been cautious in accepting copyright as a basis for refusing trademark applications.) On September 24, 2024, an opposition was filed on three main grounds: confusing similarity, copyright infringement of the artistic work,
Read More
June 10, 2026
For multinational franchisors operating in Thailand, a key risk after franchise termination is that former outlets may continue operating in ways that could easily mislead consumers into believing they remain within the authorized network. To justify such operations, former franchisees often argue that the termination was invalid or ineffective. As a result, these cases are often treated as contractual disputes, making it difficult for franchisors to obtain injunctive relief before a final judgment confirms that the termination was lawful. Franchisors face significant commercial and reputational harm during lengthy proceedings, including consumer confusion, disruption to franchise restructuring, and damage to brand reputation and customer trust. In an encouraging development, the Thai court in a 2025 case responded to the problem of unauthorized post-termination franchise operations by granting interim relief, recognizing broader brand and consumer harm, and awarding substantial damages, highlighting a successful litigation strategy of framing the dispute not merely as a contractual termination issue but as trademark infringement causing ongoing commercial injury. The Subway Case From December 2024 to mid-2025, an unauthorized “Subway®” franchise operation in Thailand attracted substantial public and media attention. Reports and online discussions about unauthorized Subway® stores circulated widely after complaints arose about food quality and customer experience at certain outlets that were allegedly operating after their franchise rights had expired. Because these stores continued to use Subway® trademarks, trade dress, and overall commercial appearance, many consumers were unable to distinguish them from authorized operations, resulting in reputational risks and customer confusion that affected the franchisor’s brand and franchise system in Thailand. Subway treated this matter with the utmost seriousness and moved promptly to protect its brand, franchise system, and customers. It filed a civil action with the IP&IT Court seeking a permanent injunction and damages. During the proceedings, the court granted a preliminary injunction
Read More
May 22, 2026
Intellectual property specialists from Tilleke & Gibbins in Vietnam have contributed an updated Intellectual Property Transactions in Vietnam overview for Thomson Reuters Practical Law, an online publication that provides comprehensive legal guides for jurisdictions worldwide. The Vietnam overview was authored by Linh Thi Mai Nguyen, Thanh Phuong Vu, Chi Lan Dang, Son Thai Hoang, and Duc Anh Tran. The chapter provides a high-level examination of key aspects of IP transactions law in Vietnam, including IP assignment and licensing, research and development collaborations, IP in mergers and acquisitions (M&A), lending and taking security over intellectual property rights, settlement agreements, employee- and consultant-created IP, competition law, taxation, and non-tariff trade barriers. Key topics covered in the chapter include: IP assignment: Basis and formalities for assignments of patents, utility models, trade marks, copyright, design rights, trade secrets, confidential information, and domain names in Vietnam. IP licensing: Scope, formalities, and recordal requirements for licensing patents, trade marks, copyright, design rights, and trade secrets. Research and development collaborations: Treatment of improvements, derivatives, and joint ownership of IP, including exploitation and enforcement issues. IP aspects of M&A and security: Due diligence, warranties, transfer formalities, and taking security over intellectual property rights. Practical Law, a legal reference resource from Thomson Reuters, publishes a range of guides for hundreds of jurisdictions and practice areas. The Intellectual Property Transactions Global Guide is a valuable resource for legal practitioners seeking comparative insight into transactional IP issues across multiple jurisdictions. To view the latest version of the Intellectual Property Transactions in Vietnam overview, please visit the Practical Law website and enroll in the free Practical Law trial to gain full access.
Read More