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 24, 2026
Patent enablement requirements are provided under Article 102 of Vietnam’s Law on Intellectual Property (IP Law). In particular, a patent specification must “fully and clearly disclose the nature of the invention to such an extent that, based on the specification, a person having ordinary skill in the relevant art can implement the invention.” In pharmaceutical and biotechnology patents, this requirement is more complicated and subject to more rigorous assessment. The Patent Examination Guidelines (Guidelines) of the Intellectual Property Office of Vietnam (IP Office) were amended in March 2026 to introduce Annexes III and IV for the pharmaceutical and biotechnology sectors, in which Annex III provides detailed guidelines on the assessment of specification requirements. These amendments were made under a project for strengthening capacity in industrial property examination between the Japan International Cooperation Agency (JICA) and the IP Office. Annex III provides detailed instructions on how examiners assess enablement in a pharmaceutical or biotechnology application, and offers examples of acceptable and unacceptable descriptions with regard to the enablement aspect. Enablement Requirements in Pharma and Biotech Patents Article 12.7 of Circular 10/2026/TT-BKHCN (Circular 10) adds to the requirements of Article 102 of the IP Law that the description must demonstrate the novelty, inventive step, and industrial applicability of the technical solution. For pharmaceutical composition subject matters, Article 12.9 of Circular 10 sets out that the description must present the results of clinical trials and/or the pharmacological effects of the claimed pharmaceutical composition, and must include at least the following information: Substance/mixture used. Testing method (system) employed. Information on the test results. Correlation between the pharmacological effects obtained from the tests and the application of the pharmaceutical product in the prevention, diagnosis, and treatment of diseases. The Guidelines note that pharmacological study results should be presented in a quantified manner, and pharmacological
Read More
June 16, 2026
Since the implementation of the Trademark Law 2019 on April 1, 2023, Myanmar has operated under a modern first-to-file trademark system that brings its registration framework closer to international practice. As the new regime continues to develop in practice, applicants are increasingly required to navigate formal examination requirements, substantive objections, and procedural deadlines with greater precision. This article provides a high-level review of the trademark examination process in Myanmar, focusing on the principal stages from initial review to approval, the types of objections commonly raised by the Intellectual Property Department (IPD), and the key considerations for responding effectively. A clear understanding of these issues is essential for applicants seeking to secure registration efficiently and to mitigate avoidable delays or refusals. Examination Process: Key Stages Trademark applications filed with the IPD undergo two stages of review. Formality Examination The IPD first verifies compliance with procedural requirements, including: Correct Nice Classification Clear mark representation Accurate applicant details Clearly defined goods or services Representative details, if the application is filed by a representative Other formality requirements cover translation and transliteration of any non-English or non-Myanmar elements in the mark, color claim details, applicable disclaimers, and payment of official fees. Deficiencies result in an office action requiring correction within 30 days, which may be extended upon request. Registrability Examination The IPD also assesses registrability. A mark may be refused if it: Lacks distinctiveness Is descriptive or generic Misleads the public or violates public order/morality Contains prohibited state symbols Only compliant applications proceed to publication. Responding to Office Actions Applicants must respond within 30 days of notification from the IPD. Depending on the nature of the objection, strategies may include submitting legal arguments for distinctiveness, providing evidence of acquired distinctiveness, filing appropriate disclaimers, clarifying descriptions such as color claims, or amending the listed goods
Read More
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