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​

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
July 25, 2025
Over the first half of 2025, the government of Vietnam has implemented a comprehensive suite of legislative reforms that significantly impact the country’s intellectual property (IP) framework. These amendments, most of which took effect on 1 July 2025, span the criminal, civil, administrative, and judicial sectors, and are part of a broader initiative to modernize Vietnam’s legal infrastructure, strengthen enforcement mechanisms, and harmonize domestic regulations with international standards. A summary of the key legislative changes and their potential implications for IP protection and enforcement across Vietnam is provided below. Criminal Code: Stricter penalties Under the 2025 amendments to Vietnam’s Criminal Code, penalties for offenses involving the manufacturing and trading of counterfeit goods have been significantly escalated. Individuals convicted of such violations now face fines ranging from VND 200 million to VND 2 billion (approximately USD 7,700 to USD 77,000; up from VND 100 million to VND 1 billion). For corporate entities, the penalties are even more severe, with fines ranging from VND 2 billion to VND 40 billion (roughly USD 77,000 to USD 1.54 million; up from VND 1 billion to VND 20 billion). These heightened penalties reflect the government’s intensified efforts to deter counterfeit-related crimes and protect consumer rights. Law on Handling Administrative Violations: Extended statute of limitations and application of electronic procedure The statute of limitations for addressing administrative violations in the IP sector is still two years. However, in cases where such violations are referred by procedural authorities, this period is extended by one year. The time taken by these authorities to process the case is now included within the overall limitation period. In addition, the Law on Handling Administrative Violations facilitates the use of electronic procedures, provided that the necessary infrastructure, technical systems, and information conditions are in place. Specifically, enforcement authorities are now permitted
Read More
July 21, 2025
Distinctiveness is a fundamental requirement for a trademark’s registration and protection under Thai law. The Thai courts typically assess distinctiveness based on a mark’s inherent characteristics rather than its use, as proving acquired distinctiveness through use requires substantial evidence, including the duration of use, extent of distribution and promotional efforts. However, the Intellectual Property and International Trade Court (IP & IT Court) has recently ruled that the figurative mark WEPLAY had acquired distinctiveness through use – an uncommon ruling under Thai trademark law. Subsequently, the Court of Appeal for Specialised Cases affirmed the mark’s inherent distinctiveness based on a holistic assessment of its components. This article discusses the criteria for proving both inherent and acquired distinctiveness, offering examples from both courts to provide valuable insights into case preparation and understanding of how the courts assess distinctiveness. Background In 2017 the plaintiff filed a trademark application for the mark depicted below for goods in Class 28, including toy building blocks: The registrar rejected the application on the grounds of non-distinctiveness under Section 7 of the Trademark Act. The plaintiff appealed to the Board of Trademarks, which considered that, when the term ‘weplay’ is used for goods in Class 28, it is descriptive of the nature of the goods applied for as “playthings”. Therefore, ‘weplay’ was deemed nondistinctive under Section 7, Paragraph 2(2) of the Trademark Act. IP & IT Court decision In 2024 the IP & IT Court ruled that the term ‘weplay’ is not a coined or invented word; instead, it is a combination of ‘we’ and ‘play’, conveying the meaning of ‘we play’. When the term is used for goods in Class 28, it describes the nature of the goods as “playthings”. Consequently, the mark was deemed non-distinctive. However, the court considered the evidence presented by the plaintiff,
Read More