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

February 24, 2023

Vietnam: Law on Organization of People’s Courts Under Review for Future Amendment

On February 20, 2023, the Supreme People’s Court of Vietnam submitted a Practical Report on the Implementation of the Law on Organization of People’s Courts, as well as a Draft Amendment of the Law on Organization of People’s Courts to seek online comment from interested parties. Notably, the Supreme People’s Court has expressed a desire to establish specialized courts such as an IP court and a bankruptcy court.

Practical Report on the Implementation of the Law on Organization of People’s Courts

The Supreme People’s Court reviewed the implementation over the past eight years of the Law on Organization of People’s Courts (“LOPC”), which took effect in 2015. Some highlights of the implementation process, as set out in the Supreme People’s Court’s practical report, are as follows:

  • Re-systematization of all levels of courts: The LOPC systematized the court system in Vietnam, including four levels:
    1. Supreme People’s Court
    2. Three Superior People’s Courts
    3. 765 first-instance trial courts (including 702 district courts and 63 provincial courts)
    4. 66 appellate courts (including 63 provincial people’s courts and the three Superior People’s Courts)

    In addition, the Supreme People’s Court established four adjudicating agencies for cassation and reopening (including three Judicial Committees of the Superior People’s Court and the Council of Judges of the Supreme People’s Court).

  • Support departments for the court have been strengthened, and policies have been developed to train judges.
  • Trial results: From June 1, 2015, to April 30, 2022, the courts have settled 3,187,285 cases of all kinds out of a total of 3,334,915 cases handled (95.57%). Most of the remaining cases are newly accepted and still within the time limit for settlement as prescribed by law. On average, the courts have had to deal with about 476,416 cases each year.

Draft Amendment of Law on Organization of People’s Courts

Despite the notable accomplishments of the past eight years, a number of weaknesses were found to exist in the court system under the current LOPC. Based on its evaluation, the Supreme People’s Court decided to amend the LOPC to be in line with the current situation.

In its draft amendment of the LOPC, the Supreme People’s Court identified six major issues to resolve:

  1. Completing regulations on positions, functions, tasks, powers, and principles of organization and operation of the court.
  2. Completing regulations on the organization of the people’s court apparatus.
  3. Amending and supplementing the name, functions, tasks, and composition of the National Council for Selection and Supervision of Judges.
  4. Completing regulations on judicial titles in the people’s courts.
  5. Securing resources to build a modern, effective, and efficient court.
  6. Renovating and perfecting the mechanism for people’s participation in trials at court.

Among these six issues, two are of particular interest:

Issue 2: Completing regulations on the organization of the people’s court apparatus

The Supreme People’s Court wants to improve the organizational structure of the people’s court system. Thus, the new draft will focus on the following matters:

  • Superior People’s Court: The current organizational structure of the Superior People’s Court does not have specialized courts in specific areas such as intellectual property and bankruptcy. Hence, in the near future, the Supreme People’s Court would like to establish a separate intellectual property court.
  • Provincial people’s courts: The provincial people’s courts have both first-instance and appellate cases according to the provisions of law, and also examine the legally effective judgments and decisions of the provincial People’s Courts to recommend cassation, leading to an overly broad set of responsibilities and a lack of focus on certain stages of proceedings.
  • District-level people’s courts: The current district-level people’s court structure is still simple, with no specialized organization separating the settlement and adjudication of simple cases from the settlement and adjudication of cases requiring in-depth expertise (such as cases of intellectual property and bankruptcy).

Issue 5: Securing resources to build a modern, effective, and efficient court

According to the Supreme People’s Court, all levels of the court system are facing various difficulties. Particularly, the number of criminal cases, commercial disputes, and civil lawsuits requiring court settlement is increasing, with cases expanding in scale and complexity, while the number of judges and staff of the court remains very limited, leading to an overload of cases compared to the court’s capacity. In addition, the working conditions and facilities of the courts are still subpar or lacking, and not enough attention has been paid to ensuring they properly meet the functions and tasks of the people’s courts. The remuneration regime for judges and other judicial positions is not satisfactory compared to their working capacity, responsibilities, and occupational risks.

Vietnam’s court system is independent of the legislative and executive bodies, not belonging to the government or to ministerial-level agencies or branches. However, the mechanism for allocating funds to the court depends on the government, which leads to a prolonged process of approving the budget, limiting the proactive management and use of the court’s budget in the implementation of the law. In particular, this mechanism also leads to a misperception about the role of the court, affecting its independence.

To solve this problem, the Supreme People’s Court has considered increasing the number of judges, and building a system of budget equalization transfers from the central to the provincial courts. This effort will hopefully decrease the number of pending suits at court.

The Supreme People’s Court is collecting comments on this draft on its online portal.

RELATED INSIGHTS​ 

August 6, 2026
Every month, VAT-registered businesses in Thailand calculate their output and input VAT and file a return to pay the net amount due or claim a refund. Yet a common and costly dispute arises when a business that has paid input VAT to its supplier—and done everything asked of it—later finds that input VAT rejected on the grounds that the tax invoice was issued by “a person not entitled to issue tax invoices.” In these cases, a buyer may have confirmed the supplier’s VAT registration on the Revenue Department’s website, paid through the banking system, received a complete tax invoice, and kept full payment and inventory records. Even so, if the Revenue Department later determines that the supplier did not genuinely make the sale or collected the VAT without remitting it, the department can disallow the input VAT and assess additional tax, surcharge, and penalty—often more than a year after the transaction. A new article from tax and dispute resolution specialists at Tilleke & Gibbins in Bangkok examines how the Revenue Department and the courts approach these disputes, including two recent Supreme Court (Tax Division) decisions confirming that the taxpayer bears the burden of proving a supplier genuinely sold and delivered the goods and received payment. It considers why the VAT registration system offers no legal safe harbor, why the evidentiary burden falls hardest on online and cross-border transactions where buyers and sellers never meet, and how the Revenue Department’s own digital infrastructure could detect non-remitting suppliers at the source rather than shifting the loss to good-faith buyers. The article also sets out practical guidance: how to build a comprehensive “know-your-supplier” file at the time of a transaction, the procedural steps and strict deadlines for challenging a VAT assessment, and why dispute readiness belongs alongside tax planning at the center
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
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
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 as a PDF through the button below. The full guide can be accessed for free on the Chambers and Partners website.