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

August 19, 2021

Vietnam Must Strengthen Criminal Laws Against Trade Secret Theft

Subscribe to Updates
Managing Intellectual Property

In today’s knowledge-driven, constantly connected global economy, a comprehensive legal environment is necessary to deter and address the theft of intellectual property, especially vulnerable IP assets like trade secrets. Trade secrets can give companies a competitive edge, and are obvious targets for misappropriation. The Comprehensive and Progressive Agreement for Trans-Pacific Partnership (CPTPP), which took effect in Vietnam on 14 January 2019, has set a floor for its members to establish criminal sanctions for trade secret misappropriation. Vietnam’s compliance with the CPTPP’s requirements is necessary to ensure a healthy business environment as the country continues its path of economic integration.

Trade secret crimes under the CPTPP and Vietnam’s Criminal Code

Article 18.78 of the CPTPP requires its signatories to provide criminal procedures and penalties for one or more of the following:

  1. Unauthorized and willful access to a trade secret held in a computer system;
  2. Unauthorized and willful misappropriation of a trade secret, including by means of a computer system; or
  3. Fraudulent disclosure, or unauthorized and willful disclosure, of a trade secret, including by means of a computer system.

Vietnam’s Criminal Code 2015 (as amended in 2017) does not explicitly stipulate any trade secret crimes. However, the articles below might apply to some degree to trade secret misappropriation:

  • Article 159. Infringement of secrecy or security of another person’s mail, telephone, telegraph or other form of private information exchange;
  • Article 288. Illegal provision or use of information on computer networks or telecommunications networks; and
  • Article 289. Illegal infiltration into another person’s computer network or telecommunications network or electronic device.

One could argue that these articles of the Criminal Code, which mainly deal with the unlawful acquisition of information held in a computer network, suffice to meet the CPTPP’s requirements. However, their scope is limited to information exchange, information on computer networks, etc., and only covers a modest portion of all “trade secrets,” which, as broadly defined in Vietnam’s IP Law, encompass all types of information related to business that are commercially valuable, except for those related to personal identification, state management, and national defense and security.

These articles are principally designed to address misconduct related to private personal information (which may be unrelated to business) via computer systems. The law lacks any criminal measures to tackle “offline” misappropriation, let alone trade secret theft or economic espionage. Many instances of trade secret misappropriation still occur through traditional channels that are paper-based, not digital. As a trade secret can simply be in the form of a written note containing “tricks of the trade”, prying eyes can steal the secret at a glance.

One of the biggest threats to trade secret preservation is employees who break the promise of confidence by carrying a company’s precious business secrets to third parties. In a recent case in Vietnam, a reputable security software company found that an infringer (suspected to be a former employee) was offering source code from the company’s software (protectable as a trade secret) for sale on the internet. This type of insider threat clearly exists even in the most well-secured entity, and could result in severe economic losses and reputation damage if not properly safeguarded.

Outlook

Criminal prosecution is considered the strongest method of deterring IP crime. Yet for crimes related to trade secrets, the criminal sanctions in Vietnam do not provide enough of a deterrent, or sufficient means of trade secret protection as mandated by the CPTPP. Competitors in cut-throat competition can reap the benefit of others’ trade secrets without bearing the costs or risks of investing in their own R&D, knowing that any punishment will likely be minimal.

To our knowledge, only three cases related to trade secrets have been handled by Vietnamese authorities: (i) a 2005 case handled by the People’s Court of Ho Chi Minh City concerning the dismissal of an employee for violating internal labor rules on confidentiality, (ii) a 2010 case handled by the People’s Court of Duc Hoa District, Long An Province, concerning the alleged violation of a non-compete clause affecting trade secrets, and (iii) an administrative case regarding trade secrets currently being handled by the Inspectorate of the Ministry of Science and Technology. No criminal sanctions have yet been issued by the Vietnamese authorities for trade secret crimes.

With the current gaps in the scope of the criminal regime for trade secrets, it does not appear that a patchwork of other laws can cover the emerging threats, especially when the Vietnamese economy is opening a wide door to embrace the latest tastes and trends of integration.

Supplementing the current legal framework with strong criminal provisions on trade secrets, in harmonization with the CPTPP, will help Vietnamese businesses, particularly SMEs, to thrive and gain the upper hand in dealing with piracy risks, and also help foreign enterprises prevent the erosion of their competitive edge, promising a bright future for Vietnam in attracting both domestic and foreign investment.

This article first appeared in Managing Intellectual Property.

Download Full Article
Related Professionals

Practices

Dispute Resolution and Litigation

Intellectual Property

Location

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
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 as a PDF through the button below. The full guide can be accessed for free on the Chambers and Partners website.
Read More