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 21, 2025
Although the “passing off” principle has sometimes faced criticism for potentially broadening trademark protection—particularly in cases involving unregistered or unconventional marks like shapes, scents, or sounds—it serves an essential purpose. It safeguards the rights of business owners and shields consumers from deception, ensuring fair competition and reflecting the realities of modern commerce. What is passing off, and why is registrability not required? The passing-off principle is a legal concept rooted in English law, aimed at preventing a person from falsely representing or using a mark similar to another’s in a way that causes consumers to mistakenly believe the goods or services come from the same source. Under Thai law, the passing-off principle is provided under Section 46 of the Thai Trademark Act, which states: No person shall be entitled to bring legal proceedings to prevent or to recover damages for the infringement of an unregistered trademark. The provisions of this Section shall not affect the right of the owner of an unregistered trademark to bring legal proceedings against any person for passing off goods as those of the owner of the trademark. The passing-off principle can be interpreted as a practical legal concept. It does not require proof that the mark is registrable or meets the registrability criteria under trademark law. It is sufficient to show that the mark has established goodwill and that the other party’s use of a similar mark is likely to confuse consumers, making it a straightforward and effective tool for protecting brand assets. Requiring a claimant to prove that an unregistered mark could have been registered would undermine the very function of passing off. The doctrine was conceived precisely to fill the gaps left by the registration system. Imposing registrability criteria would nullify its function and leave many commercially valuable identifiers unprotected. If the
Read More
August 15, 2025
Indonesia’s Directorate General of Intellectual Property (DGIP) has introduced a temporary feature in its online filing system to accommodate the submission of annual patent working statements. The requirement to submit these annual working statements was introduced under the amended Patent Law enacted on October 28, 2024, but the implementing regulation has still not been issued. Annual Working Statements Article 20A of the amended Patent Law requires all patentees to submit an annual statement regarding the implementation of their patents in Indonesia. This obligation applies to all active patents, regardless of when they were granted. The annual working statement declares the status of implementation of the patented invention within Indonesia. Acceptable forms of implementation include: Manufacturing the patented product (whether commercialized or not) Utilizing the patented process (whether commercialized or not) Importation Licensing If the patent has not yet been implemented in Indonesia, the DGIP provides an option to indicate: “The mentioned registered patent has not been implemented in Indonesia.” The statement must be made using the official template provided by the DGIP through the online filing system. Submission The working statement must be submitted annually no later than December 31 of each calendar year. No supporting documents are needed for the submission apart from the signed form itself. A color scanned copy will suffice; the original document is not required. There is currently no official fee for submitting the working statement. While the submission process may eventually align with annuity fee payments, the current process remains separate due to the pending implementing regulation. The submission process may be subject to change upon issuance of the implementing regulation, which is under discussion and expected in the coming months. In the interim, the DGIP accepts submissions of overdue working statements, allowing patentees to fulfill their obligations retroactively. This flexibility is expected
Read More
July 31, 2025
The Madrid System for international trademark registration provides the opportunity for a simplified and cost-effective way to register trademarks in multiple countries through a single application. Indonesia joined the Madrid System in 2018, and in 2024 alone, it received over 8,600 applications through this system. Despite the system’s effectiveness, it is important for trademark owners to be aware of the potential risks of refusal that can arise during the process of registration. Trademark applicants must pay close attention to these critical points when designating Indonesia. Appointing a Local Representative to Respond An applicant or representative of an international registration (IR) application that has been provisionally refused must appoint a local Indonesian representative in order to submit a response to the provisional refusal. This appointment is solely for the purpose of responding to the refusal in Indonesia; it is not necessary if the IR has not received any rejection. Furthermore, the local representative should not be registered with WIPO, as doing so would affect representation across all designated countries. Timing When it comes to calculating the deadline for responding to a provisional refusal, there is a discrepancy between the methods used by the DGIP and WIPO. Under the Indonesian Trademark Law, trademark owners can file a response within 30 working days, excluding weekends and national holidays. However, the WIPO cover letter accompanying the DGIP’s provisional refusal notice specifies both the start date and the deadline for responding to the notification, which is calculated as 30 calendar days, including weekends and national holidays. Therefore, a response to the provisional refusal of IR should be submitted in accordance with the WIPO cover letter to prevent any formality issue. Grounds for Refusal After an IR application is published in Indonesia’s Trademark Gazette, it undergoes substantive examination by the Directorate General of Intellectual Property (DGIP) examiners. The
Read More
July 30, 2025
Artificial intelligence (AI) model training and data scraping are essential processes in the development of modern AI systems. AI model training involves using large datasets to teach machine learning algorithms to recognize patterns, make predictions, or generate new content. Data scraping refers to the automated extraction of information from websites or digital sources, often to assemble the vast datasets required for effective AI training. As these practices become more widespread, questions about the legality of using third-party content—especially copyrighted works—have become increasingly important. In Thailand, the legal landscape for AI developers is shaped primarily by the Copyright Act, which presents unique challenges due to the absence of a fair-use exception. This article examines the copyright-related risks and legal uncertainties facing AI developers under Thailand’s current copyright law and practices, offering strategic guidance for navigating this complex environment. Copyright Risks in AI Scraping and Training Thailand’s Copyright Act does not provide a broad fair use or fair dealing exception, unlike some other jurisdictions, such as the United States. This absence has significant consequences for AI developers: No general defense for AI training: Any use of copyrighted material for AI model training is presumed to be infringing unless a specific, narrow statutory exception applies or explicit permission is obtained from the rights holder. There is no general legal basis for using copyrighted works in AI training without authorization. Increased rights clearance burden: Developers must identify and secure licenses for every copyrighted work included in their training datasets. Given the scale and diversity of data required for effective AI models, this process can be both impractical and costly. Legal ambiguity and litigation risk: The lack of clear statutory guidance or case law leaves developers in a legal gray area. There is no established precedent clarifying whether certain uses of copyrighted material for
Read More