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​ 

July 27, 2026
In March 2025, Thailand’s Central Intellectual Property and International Trade Court (IP&IT Court) issued a landmark judgment in favor of Luckin Coffee, China’s leading retail coffee chain. The judgment marked a significant turnaround following earlier trademark litigation involving Luckin Coffee from 2021 to 2023 that had generated widespread public attention and raised questions about the protection available to legitimate foreign brand owners in Thailand. In a significant subsequent development, Thailand’s Court of Appeal for Specialized Cases has now affirmed the IP&IT Court’s judgment in its entirety. The appellate decision brings clarity to one of Thailand’s most closely watched trademark disputes. Significantly, this is the first case in Thailand to formally recognize the trademark squatting principle. The Court of Appeal confirmed that Luckin Coffee has a better right to the disputed mark and ordered cancellation of the defendants’ trademark registration—a key application of the “better right” doctrine. The court also upheld the substantial damages awarded at first instance, providing important guidance on assessing harm from systematic trademark squatting. Award-Winning Judgment Affirmed in Its Entirety The significance of the first-instance judgment extended beyond the outcome for Luckin Coffee. The IP&IT Court judgment was subsequently recognized in the IP&IT Court’s Distinguished Judgment Awards in 2025, reflecting the complexity, novelty, and legal significance of the issues considered in the case. The defendants nevertheless appealed the judgment, challenging several key aspects of the IP&IT Court’s decision. Luckin Coffee continued to entrust Tilleke & Gibbins as their sole attorney to pursue the case at the appellate level. After considering the defendants’ appeal and Luckin Coffee’s submissions in response, the Court of Appeal affirmed the first-instance judgment in its entirety. The judgment was announced on July 8, 2026. Better Right to the Marks The Court of Appeal confirmed Luckin Coffee’s superior rights. The orders include cancellation
July 24, 2026
As food innovation continues to accelerate, manufacturers are increasingly introducing ingredients derived from new sources, produced using novel technologies, or lacking a significant history of human consumption. While these innovations create new opportunities for the food industry, they also raise important questions regarding consumer safety. For this reason, many jurisdictions, including Thailand, the European Union, Australia and New Zealand, Canada, and Singapore, require a premarket safety assessment for novel food ingredients before they can be placed on the market. The objective of this assessment is to ensure that each ingredient is safe for its intended use and level of consumption, does not present toxicological, allergenic, microbiological, or nutritional concerns, and will not mislead consumers. Scientific authorities typically evaluate the ingredient’s identity, manufacturing process, composition, specifications, anticipated dietary exposure, toxicological information, nutritional impact, and history of use before determining whether it can be marketed. Against this background, the Thai Food and Drug Administration (FDA) recently took an important step toward improving regulatory transparency by publishing, for the first time, a consolidated public list of substances that have successfully completed the Thai FDA’s safety assessment process, including substances determined to be novel foods and those determined not to fall within the novel food category. The list identifies the approved substances, the corresponding manufacturers or importers, approval dates, and the approved conditions of use. Although the publication does not change the existing legal framework governing novel food approvals, it provides businesses with greater visibility into the Thai FDA’s regulatory precedents and the types of substances that have previously been accepted through the safety assessment process. The full announcement is available on the Thai FDA’s website. As the list is now publicly available, it also provides useful insight into the types of substances that have successfully completed the Thai FDA’s safety assessment process.
July 24, 2026
Indonesia has updated its fee framework for intellectual property (IP)-related government services, with implications for IP owners, licensees, lenders, digital platforms, and businesses operating in the country. Government Regulation No. 30 of 2026 on Types and Tariffs of Non-Tax State Revenue Applicable to the Ministry of Law (GR 30/2026) was promulgated on July 2, 2026, and will take effect on August 1, 2026. Key Takeaways GR 30/2026, which replaces the relevant IP service fees under Government Regulation No. 45 of 2024, reorganizes the fee schedule into separate categories for copyright, industrial designs, patents, layout designs of integrated circuits, trade secrets, trademarks, geographical indications, IP enforcement, and other categories. The most commercially relevant changes include a new copyright recordation tariff exemption for songs and music, higher fees for several trademark and geographical indication services, new IP enforcement service fees, and a new fee type for registration of fiduciary security over IP rights objects. In addition, this is the first major update for trademark fees in approximately 10 years. GR 30/2026 is significant not only as a fee update but also as a further indication of Indonesia’s increasing recognition of IP as a financeable commercial asset. By expressly assigning fees to the registration of fiduciary security over IP rights objects, the regulation places IP-backed collateral filings within the Ministry of Law’s administrative service framework. While GR 30/2026 does not create a new secured-transactions regime, this development is relevant for lenders, borrowers, and IP owners structuring financing arrangements secured by trademarks, patents, copyrights, industrial designs, or other registrable IP rights in Indonesia. Copyright: New Fee Exemption for Songs and Music Recordation For copyright, GR 30/2026 creates a fee-exempt category for recordation of works or related-rights products for songs or music, while maintaining a separate category for other works and related-rights products. It
July 21, 2026
Thailand’s Ministry of Digital Economy and Society (MDES) published a notification establishing an expedited court-ordered takedown mechanism for online content in cases of “urgent necessity.” The notification, which was issued on July 17, 2026, under the Computer Crime Act B.E. 2550 (2007), as amended, took effect the following day. It significantly expands the categories of content subject to rapid government-initiated removal. Content Categories Subject to Takedown The notification defines “urgent necessity” (section 20, paragraph 5, of the Computer Crime Act) as circumstances where any delay in suppressing computer data may impact national security, religion, the monarchy, good morals, social culture, or public order. In this regard, it establishes four broad categories of content: Computer Crime Act offenses. National security offenses. IP and other criminal offenses, where it is contrary to public order or good morals and a competent officer has requested its suppression. Content contrary to public order or good morals, a broad residual category encompassing 14 subcategories approved by the Computer Data Screening Committee. The fourth category is the most expansive. Its 14 subcategories include: Content defaming, mocking, satirizing, or devaluing the monarchy. Online gambling advertising or facilitation. Offering illegal firearms for sale. Offering baraku (hookah) products or e-cigarettes for sale. Offering cannabis inflorescences or processed cannabis products for sale. Advertising or soliciting prostitution. Content inciting violence, hatred, or social division. Unauthorized overseas employment advertising. Offering boiled kratom juice for sale. Online sale or advertising of alcoholic beverages. Content satirizing or degrading Buddhism. Money lending at interest rates exceeding legally prescribed limits. Advertising or disseminating information about surrogacy services. Forgery of documents, cards, or official documents. Enforcement Procedure In cases of urgent necessity, a competent official assigned by the MDES permanent secretary must file a petition with supporting evidence to the court with jurisdiction, requesting an order to