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

January 30, 2026

Vietnam Issues New Decree on Administrative Sanctions for Copyright and Related Rights

Subscribe to Updates
Managing Intellectual Property

On December 26, 2025, the government of Vietnam promulgated Decree No. 341/2025/ND-CP on administrative sanctions for violations of copyright and related rights (Decree 341), with an effective date of February 15, 2026. The new decree replaces Decree No. 131/2013/ND-CP, as amended, and represents the first comprehensive revision of the administrative enforcement framework in this area in eight years.

Legislative Context and Objectives

Decree 341 reflects Vietnam’s evolving copyright and related-rights framework, particularly in light of the country’s commitments under bilateral, regional, and multilateral treaties governing the digital environment. While the decree retains a number of provisions from the previous regime, it also introduces significant amendments to infringing acts, penalty thresholds, remedial measures, and enforcement procedures.

The primary objectives of the new decree are to (i) enhance the deterrent effect of administrative sanctions; (ii) harmonize sanctions with the 2025 amendments to the Law on Intellectual Property and criminal law principles; and (iii) address enforcement challenges arising from online and cross-border exploitation of copyrighted works.

Expanded Scope of Sanctionable Subjects

Under Decree 341, administrative sanctions apply not only to Vietnamese entities committing infringing acts within Vietnam, but also to Vietnamese and foreign entities that commit acts of infringement on the internet where the protected content is accessed, consumed, or exploited by users in Vietnam.

This expansion reflects the realities of cross-border digital exploitation. However, the decree does not yet provide precise definitions of key terms such as “users” or “consumers” of digital content in Vietnam, which may require further regulatory clarification.

Monetary Penalties and Penalty Structure

The statutory maximum fines remain unchanged, at VND 250 million for individuals and VND 500 million for organizations, but the penalty framework is substantially restructured. Fines are now calibrated based on three core criteria: (i) the amount of illegal profit obtained; (ii) the level of damage caused to the rights holder; or (iii) the value of the infringing goods.

This approach aligns administrative sanctions more closely with criminal law principles and ensures greater proportionality between the infringement and the penalty imposed. However, the monetary fines still appear low compared with the damage suffered by IP holders as a result of copyright infringement.

Substantially Expanded Remedial Measures

One of the most notable developments introduced by Decree 341 is the significant expansion of remedial measures applicable to copyright and related rights infringements, an increase from four to 29.

The introduction of these measures equips authorities with a broader and more flexible toolkit to address both traditional, physical infringements and infringements occurring in the digital environment. Notably, several of these remedies were previously available only through civil litigation.

Key examples include:

  • Mandatory public apologies to the affected rights holder.
  • Mandatory surrender of copyright certificates, which may effectively function as a de facto revocation of the granted rights.
  • Temporary removal or blocking of access to infringing digital content, a mechanism comparable to interim injunctions in civil proceedings.
  • Obligations on infringers to disgorge profits obtained from the infringing acts.

Certain aspects of the new regime remain unclear. In particular, while Decree 341 introduces mandatory public apologies and profit disgorgement as sanctions, there is currently no detailed regulatory guidance on how illicit profits should be calculated or whether such profits are to be treated as a form of compensable damage. As a result, there remains uncertainty as to how these remedies will be applied in practice and how consistently enforcement authorities will interpret and implement them.

Further implementing guidance will therefore be critical to ensuring legal certainty and uniform application of these newly introduced measures.

Expansion of Infringing Acts

The scope of sanctionable conduct has been expanded from 31 to 43 categories of violations, including 35 acts of copyright and related-rights infringement and 8 other administrative violations related to copyright and related rights.

This expansion reflects the increasing complexity of infringement in the digital environment and provides enforcement authorities with clearer legal grounds to address emerging forms of misconduct. One important new provision allows the authorities to impose sanctions on internet service providers if they commit violations, such as failing to provide information about infringers or failing to comply with official orders.

Enforcement Authorities

Decree 341 confirms a broad range of competent authorities, including:

  • People’s Committees at all levels;
  • Inspectors of the Civil Aviation Authority of Vietnam and the Vietnam Maritime and Waterway Administration;
  • Leaders of state management agencies in relevant sectors, including departments under the Ministry of Culture, Sports and Tourism (MOCST);
  • Directors General of the broadcasting, press, and publishing authorities; and
  • Law-enforcement bodies, including the police, border guards, the coast guard, customs, and market surveillance forces.

Notably, the Inspectorate of the MOCST no longer functions as a permanent enforcement body. Instead, the leaders of the MOCST or provincial/city-level Departments of Culture, Sports and Tourism can form ad hoc inspection teams, depending on the nature of the violation.

Procedural Reforms

Decree 341 introduces important procedural safeguards that were absent from the previous framework. These include detailed rules on the form and recipients of mandatory apologies; specific methodologies for calculating illegal profits; and formal grounds for refusing or suspending administrative enforcement where there is a dispute over ownership, scope, duration, or subject matter of copyright or related rights.

These provisions enhance legal certainty and reduce the risk of overlapping or premature administrative action where civil disputes remain unresolved.

Conclusion

Decree 341 represents a substantial modernization of Vietnam’s administrative enforcement regime for copyright and related rights. By expanding the scope of infringements, strengthening remedies, and refining enforcement procedures, the decree is expected to improve the effectiveness of rights protection, particularly in the digital environment.

Rights holders operating in or targeting the Vietnamese market should review their enforcement strategies in light of this new framework and prepare to take advantage of the broader range of remedies and enforcement mechanisms available from February 2026 onward.

This article first appeared in Managing Intellectual Property.

Related Professionals

Practices

Intellectual Property

Location

RELATED INSIGHTS​ 

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
August 4, 2026
Intellectual property (IP) protection sometimes hinges on fame and recognition. However, this alone will not always be sufficient to overcome an IP dispute when it involves contractual obligations or registered rights. Below are five cases from around the world that tackle some of the basic issues in IP registration, ownership, commercialization, and enforcement. 1. USA: Taylor Swift Trademark Application Refused Taylor Swift recently filed a trademark application to register “The Life of a Showgirl,” which is the title of her 12th studio album. When examining a trademark application, the examiner considers various factors before deciding whether it should be registered. One of these factors is whether there is a likelihood of confusion (i.e., would a regular consumer mistake the origin of the trademark). In Taylor Swift’s case, the US Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO) decided that that there would be a risk of confusion. This decision was based on the existing registered trademark, “Confessions of a Showgirl,” owned by Maren Wade, which was registered in 2015. The USPTO refused Taylor Swift’s application based on the shared key distinctive element “of a showgirl,” the lack of sufficient distinguishing terms, the marks being used in overlapping markets (entertainment and performances), and because consumers may assume a common commercial source. Maren Wade then filed a lawsuit in California against Taylor Swift and her affiliated companies, arguing that Taylor Swfit’s branding is confusingly similar in structure, wording, and overall commercial impression to her registered mark. She is also drawing on the USPTO’s refusal of Taylor Swift’s application to support her argument of a likelihood of confusion. A judgment has not yet been reached in this case, but it serves as an important reminder of the importance of satisfying the essential elements required for IP registration. 2. Australia: Katy Perry v. Katie Perry In
Read More
July 27, 2026
Vietnam’s new E-Commerce Law, which took effect on 1 July 2026 along with its implementing Decree No. 248/2026/ND-CP (Decree 248), marks a significant development in the country’s approach to online intellectual property (IP) enforcement, reflecting a clear shift from a reactive model of intermediary liability to one that expects platforms to play a more active role in preventing infringement. From notice-and-takedown to platform responsibility The most significant change introduced by the E-Commerce Law is the transformation of the legal role of e-commerce platforms. The existing safe harbor provisions under the IP Law and the copyright notice-and-takedown regime established by Decree 17/2023/ND-CP (Decree 17) largely required intermediaries to act only after receiving notice of infringement. Once infringing content had been removed, the platform’s legal obligation was generally considered fulfilled. The new legislation adopts a fundamentally different approach. Article 17 of the E-Commerce Law requires intermediary platforms to screen information relating to goods and services before publication in order to prevent listings involving counterfeit or IP-infringing goods, and goods of unknown origin. Rather than relying exclusively on complaints from rights holders, platforms are now expected to implement preventive measures before infringing listings become publicly available. Decree 248 further requires platforms to update keyword filters based on recommendations issued by competent authorities. These filtering mechanisms are intended to prevent prohibited listings from appearing on the platform and represent a further move away from a purely complaint-driven enforcement model. The legislation also introduces Vietnam’s first statutory stay-down obligation. Under the E-Commerce Law and Decree 248, major digital platforms must maintain automated systems capable of reviewing, warning against, and removing unlawful listings while also implementing measures to prevent repeat violations, defined under Decree 248 as conduct that has previously been identified and handled by the platform, but continues to recur. This obligation addresses one
Read More
July 27, 2026
Tilleke & Gibbins’ intellectual property specialists have authored the Thailand chapter of Trade Secrets 2026 from Chambers and Partners. This global guide examines the legal frameworks governing trade secret protection, enforcement, and litigation across jurisdictions worldwide. The Thailand chapter provides a comprehensive overview of the country’s legal regime for protecting confidential business information, covering the legal framework, trade secret misappropriation, litigation procedures, remedies, and dispute resolution. Some topics covered include: Protectable trade secrets Reasonable measures to maintain secrecy Employee confidentiality Trade secret licensing Civil and criminal remedies Litigation procedures and injunctions Damages and other remedies Mediation and arbitration The guide also examines practical issues relating to safeguarding trade secrets, defending against allegations of misappropriation, and managing trade secret disputes in Thailand. Chambers and Partners’ Global Practice Guides provide in-house counsel with authoritative commentary on practical legal issues affecting business, enabling readers to compare legislation and procedures across multiple jurisdictions. The Thailand chapter of Trade Secrets 2026 is available on the Chambers and Partners website.
Read More