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​ 

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
Read More
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.
Read More
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
Read More
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
Read More