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​ 

June 16, 2026
The president of Thailand’s Supreme Court has issued new recommendations providing courts with criminal jurisdiction with a comprehensive framework for identifying and dismissing criminal cases brought in bad faith. Published in the Government Gazette on May 29, 2026, after being signed on May 25, the Recommendations of the President of the Supreme Court Concerning Bad-Faith Litigation in Criminal Cases B.E. 2569 were issued under Section 5 of the Act on the Organization of Courts of Justice. The recommendations took effect upon publication and represent a significant step in Thailand’s efforts to curb abusive criminal litigation, including strategic lawsuits against public participation (SLAPP). Background Section 161/1 of Thailand’s Criminal Procedure Code empowers courts to dismiss criminal cases filed dishonestly or with the intent to harass or take unfair advantage of a defendant. The new recommendations provide detailed guidance that courts previously lacked on identifying and handling such prosecutions. Definition of Bad-Faith Litigation Under recommendation 1, filing a criminal case in bad faith is defined broadly to encompass three categories: Harassment-type filings involving intimidation, threats, or creating unreasonable hardship for the defendant; Coercive filings designed to pressure the defendant into acting or refraining from acting for illegitimate benefit; and False or misleading filings that deliberately assert incorrect material facts or conceal such facts. Circumstances Indicating Bad Faith Recommendation 2 sets out specific circumstances that should raise a court’s suspicion that a filing may violate section 161/1. These include: Filing in a distant court far from the defendant’s domicile without benefiting the adjudication; Retaliation against the defendant’s advocacy for human rights, environmental protection, consumer rights, labor rights, or other public interests—effectively establishing an express anti-SLAPP framework; Retaliation against whistleblowers who disclosed corruption or unlawful conduct; Retaliation against individuals responsible for investigating the plaintiff’s wrongdoing or who concluded such an investigation; Filing multiple
Read More
June 16, 2026
Since the implementation of the Trademark Law 2019 on April 1, 2023, Myanmar has operated under a modern first-to-file trademark system that brings its registration framework closer to international practice. As the new regime continues to develop in practice, applicants are increasingly required to navigate formal examination requirements, substantive objections, and procedural deadlines with greater precision. This article provides a high-level review of the trademark examination process in Myanmar, focusing on the principal stages from initial review to approval, the types of objections commonly raised by the Intellectual Property Department (IPD), and the key considerations for responding effectively. A clear understanding of these issues is essential for applicants seeking to secure registration efficiently and to mitigate avoidable delays or refusals. Examination Process: Key Stages Trademark applications filed with the IPD undergo two stages of review. Formality Examination The IPD first verifies compliance with procedural requirements, including: Correct Nice Classification Clear mark representation Accurate applicant details Clearly defined goods or services Representative details, if the application is filed by a representative Other formality requirements cover translation and transliteration of any non-English or non-Myanmar elements in the mark, color claim details, applicable disclaimers, and payment of official fees. Deficiencies result in an office action requiring correction within 30 days, which may be extended upon request. Registrability Examination The IPD also assesses registrability. A mark may be refused if it: Lacks distinctiveness Is descriptive or generic Misleads the public or violates public order/morality Contains prohibited state symbols Only compliant applications proceed to publication. Responding to Office Actions Applicants must respond within 30 days of notification from the IPD. Depending on the nature of the objection, strategies may include submitting legal arguments for distinctiveness, providing evidence of acquired distinctiveness, filing appropriate disclaimers, clarifying descriptions such as color claims, or amending the listed goods
Read More
June 15, 2026
The surge in AI development has led to a desperate demand for large, high-quality training data. However, real-world data can be expensive to collect, difficult to access, and often subject to strict privacy and regulatory constraints. Synthetic data, which consists of artificially generated records that replicate the statistical properties of real-world data without reproducing specific individuals’ information, provides an appealing solution by generating artificial datasets at scale without relying on identifiable personal information. It combines speed, cost efficiency, and regulatory compliance, making it a sensible alternative for organizations seeking to reduce risks while maintaining data utility. When properly anonymized, synthetic datasets may fall outside the scope of laws such as the EU’s General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR) or Thailand’s Personal Data Protection Act (PDPA), reducing compliance burdens while still supporting high-quality model training. However, relying on synthetic data without rigorous legal due diligence could be a strategic mistake. It replaces one set of known risks (scraping, direct privacy liability) with a new set of complex liabilities. The narrative that synthetic data is a “silver bullet” for privacy and IP compliance is dangerous and could be misleading. While synthetic data addresses data scarcity, it also introduces new legal uncertainties. Legal counsel should anticipate downstream risks arising from compromised data sources. Models trained on unlawfully obtained data may need to be decommissioned, even if their outputs appear lawful. What is synthetic data? Synthetic data refers to artificially generated information created using AI techniques such as deep learning and generative models. Instead of copying real records, it reproduces the statistical patterns and relationships found in the original dataset. Synthetic data generally falls into three categories: Fully synthetic data – Entirely new data points generated from learned patterns. The model studies the structure of the original data and produces records that resemble real-world
Read More
June 10, 2026
In March 2026, the Intellectual Property Office of Vietnam (IP Office) issued a decision refusing a trademark application after considering an opposition based primarily on copyright grounds. The outcome is noteworthy because the foreign brand owner had neither trademark registrations nor applications in Vietnam at the time the opposition was filed, and the IP Office has historically applied a stringent approach to oppositions relying on copyright. The Opposition Maurten is a well-known Swedish sports nutrition brand recognized globally for its innovative hydrogel technology, which is designed to help endurance athletes fuel more effectively without gastrointestinal discomfort. The brand’s distinctive logo is characterized by clean lines and a bold black-and-white color scheme, and has long been associated with the company’s performance products. The brand’s logo is displayed above. An identical mark was filed for registration by a Vietnamese trademark squatter. In 2023, a Vietnamese individual filed an application for registration of an identical mark (Application No. 4-2023-38668), a practice commonly observed in Vietnam as trademark squatting. The brand owner engaged Tilleke & Gibbins to assist with strategy and filing an opposition to the mark. At the time, Maurten had no trademark rights or meaningful use in Vietnam, and global marketing data showed only modest figures without any local presence. Thus, to convince the IP Office to refuse the squatter’s application, instead of relying on trademark rights or use evidence, the opposition strategy centered on the copyright protection of the logo itself, as copyright arises automatically in Vietnam upon creation of the work and does not require registration. (It is worth noting, however, that the IP Office has traditionally been cautious in accepting copyright as a basis for refusing trademark applications.) On September 24, 2024, an opposition was filed on three main grounds: confusing similarity, copyright infringement of the artistic work,
Read More