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

September 4, 2018

Vietnam: New Law on Competition Impacts IP

Subscribe to Updates
Managing Intellectual Property

On June 12, 2018, Vietnam passed a new Law on Competition that will take effect on July 1, 2019, replacing the Law on Competition of 2004. The new law brings about several changes affecting intellectual property. Notably, it eliminates many of the discrepancies between the current 2004 Competition Law and the Intellectual Property Law in dealing with IP-related unfair competition.

Acts of Unfair Competition

A weakness of the 2004 Competition Law and its subordinate regulations (such as Decree No. 71/2014/ND-CP) is that they overlap with provisions on competition found in other laws. For example, both the 2004 Competition Law and the IP Law have provisions concerning acts of cybersquatting, the use of misleading trade indications, and the unauthorized use of a trademark by an agent, and both provide that the infringement of trade secrets is an act of unfair competition. This has led to confusion for law enforcement agencies and rights holders as to which enforcement mechanisms should be employed in taking action against unfair competition relating to IP.

The new Competition Law no longer sets out acts of unfair competition that are already covered by the IP Law. Instead, the new law expressly states that when there are discrepancies between the Competition Law and the related unfair competition provisions of another law, the provisions of the other law will prevail. This will be a big step toward clarifying who will enforce the laws on unfair competition in practice. When the new Competition Law takes force, rights holders can rely solely on the IP Law.

Secrets in Business

The new Competition Law seems to introduce a new statutory term, “secrets in business” (bí mật trong kinh doanh). The new law considers infringement of these “secrets in business” to amount to unfair competition, but it does not define this term. The term is similar to the statutory term “trade secret” (bí mật kinh doanh) defined in the IP Law. However, given the principle that the new law does not repeat acts of unfair competition provided in other laws, it is uncertain whether the term “secrets in business” has an equivalent meaning to “trade secret” in the IP Law, or is something entirely new. As a matter of practice, the government will roll out decrees to guide the implementation of new laws. In these decrees, the government should clarify the meaning of this term.

Court Jurisdiction

The prevailing competition laws defer to the Civil Code for resolving non-contractual damages related to unfair practices. Particularly, if unfair practices cause damage to the lawful rights and interests of others, the offenders are required to compensate for such loss in accordance with the civil laws. Under the Civil Procedure Code, disputes over compensation for non-contractual damage fall under the civil courts’ jurisdiction. To resolve these disputes, the court must assess the unfair competition acts as one of the bases for determining the damages.

The new Competition Law no longer expressly refers to the civil laws as the legal tools to deal with unfair competition, triggering concern about whether the civil court still has jurisdiction to rule on unfair competition. However, the new law does not expressly obviate the court’s jurisdiction over acts of unfair competition that cause harm to the legitimate rights and interests of competitors. In addition, the Law on Promulgation of Legal Documents prevents laws from repeating regulations that are mentioned in other laws. The civil laws already expressly allow companies to initiate suits to generally protect their rights and interests. Thus, the new Competition Law should be interpreted in a way not to preclude the court’s power to deal with acts of unfair competition.

Other Changes

The new law establishes a new state agency, the National Competition Commission, to be in charge of dealing with antitrust and unfair competition practices set out in the law. For unfair competition acts covered in other laws, the respective authorities empowered by such laws would have power. As such, to curb unfair competition under laws relating to IP, companies can rely on administrative enforcement bodies, civil courts, or arbitration as set forth in the IP Law.

The new law also shortens the timeframe for administrative bodies, namely the National Competition Commission, to deal with unfair competition. Under the new law, the maximum time is just 60 days, with an option to extend another 45 days. This would only apply to unfair competition acts not falling under the IP Law. On the whole, the new Competition Law marks progress in eradicating discrepancies between laws on competition and IP that have caused uncertainty for years. However, certain issues still need clarification, such as compulsory licensing and “secrets in business,” for the law to be easily implemented in practice.

Download Full Article
Related Professionals

Practices

Antitrust and Competition

Intellectual Property

Location

RELATED INSIGHTS​ 

December 30, 2025
The Intellectual Property Office of Vietnam (IP Office), with support from the Japan International Cooperation Agency (JICA), is drafting additional annexes to its Guidelines for Patent Examination, focusing on the examination of patent applications in the pharmaceutical and biotechnology sectors. The new annexes are expected to be officially issued in early 2026 as Annexes III and IV, following the successful issuance in 2023 of Annexes I and II addressing computer program-related inventions. The IP Office recently organized a seminar to gather feedback on the draft annexes from intellectual property representatives, academic institutions, research institutes, and other interested parties, emphasizing its intention to receive further constructive opinions to refine the guidelines for pharmaceuticals and biotechnology. Why These Guidelines Matter Patent examination in Vietnam has traditionally relied on the Guidelines for Patent Examination issued under Decision No. 487/QD-SHTT (2010), recently supplemented by Annexes I and II. While these documents provide a solid foundation, they do not fully address practical challenges in examining pharmaceutical and biotech inventions, particularly issues related to clarity, sufficiency of disclosure, enablement, features of function and utility, combination therapies, and inventions involving artificial intelligence (AI) applications in these fields. Annexes III and IV aim to close these gaps by introducing structured principles and illustrative examples. Guidance on Patent Specification Requirements Annex III provides detailed guidance on the requirements for patent specifications in pharmaceuticals and biotechnology, covering two main parts: Part A addresses sufficiency of disclosure, clarity of specifications, and consistency between claims and descriptions. Part B covers inventions related to Markush-type compounds, claims containing exclusion statements (disclaimers), and additional experimental data submitted during examination. The Guidelines outline specific disclosure requirements for subject matters such as compounds, formulations, pharmaceutical compositions, genes, polypeptides, proteins, vectors, transgenic organisms, modified organisms, and hybrid cells. Annex III emphasizes that disclaimers are not accepted
Read More
December 17, 2025
Vietnam’s National Assembly approved wide-ranging amendments to the Intellectual Property (IP) Law on December 10, 2025, marking one of the most significant overhauls of the country’s IP regime in recent years. The changes, which supplement and refine existing provisions, are designed to align Vietnam’s framework more closely with international standards while addressing practical challenges faced by rights holders and practitioners. The amendments will come into force on April 1, 2026. The most notable changes are detailed below. Recognition of partial and nonphysical industrial designs: Industrial design protection has been broadened to cover partial designs and nonphysical forms (class 32), explicitly extending rights to parts of products that are not independently circulated as well as digital and intangible product appearances. The law clarifies that the external appearances of nonphysical products are protected industrial designs, and circulation of digital copies of any part of that appearance will be treated as an act of using the industrial design. The provision on the industrial applicability of industrial designs has also been amended accordingly to include the uniform reproduction of nonphysical products in cyberspace. Resolving conflicts between overlapping rights: The IP Law provides a safeguard against conflicts when a single subject matter is protected by multiple IP rights. Where overlapping rights exist, the later-arising right will be terminated if its exercise interferes with the normal exploitation of an earlier right. The decision to terminate such a later right rests with the court. Use of published data for AI training: Organizations and individuals may use lawfully published and publicly accessible documents and data for scientific research, testing, and AI system training. Such use must not unreasonably prejudice the rights or legitimate interests of authors or IP rights holders. Where the documents and data fall under copyright or related rights protection, their use must also comply
Read More
December 5, 2025
One morning, a California-based company mapping its Southeast Asia rollout opened an unexpected cease-and-desist letter from a Vietnamese IP firm. To the company’s surprise, the letter asserted that a local client already owned the company’s brand in Vietnam and threatened legal action. This is not an isolated incident. In another recent matter in the sports industry, a squatter demanded at least USD 48,000 from our client to “resolve” a similar conflict. For brands entering Vietnam or expanding distribution there, these tactics can create acute risk at precisely the point at which market momentum is building. Vietnam’s rapid economic growth and deepening integration into global trade have made it an increasingly attractive destination for multinational brands. Those same dynamics have intensified a longstanding issue: trademark squatting. Vietnam has modernized its IP framework over the past decade, but its strict first-to-file trademark system continues to incentivize opportunistic filings by parties with no legitimate interest in a mark. As more foreign brands build their reputation abroad before turning to Vietnam, squatters remain alert to timing gaps and enforcement frictions. The First-to-File System: Advantages and Vulnerabilities Vietnam adheres closely to the first-to-file principle under its Law on Intellectual Property. In practice, exclusive trademark rights belong to whoever submits the earliest valid application to the Vietnam Intellectual Property Office, regardless of prior use in Vietnam. This approach offers administrative clarity and reduces evidentiary burdens compared to use-based jurisdictions. Yet it also creates fertile conditions for squatting. Bad-faith actors regularly monitor foreign markets, identify brands gaining traction, and move quickly to register those marks domestically, often long before the genuine owner enters the market or prioritizes local filings. By the time the true brand seeks protection, the squatter’s application (or registration) stands as a legal obstacle, pushing businesses toward costly oppositions, cancellations, or uncomfortable negotiations
Read More
December 4, 2025
Thailand has expanded the circumstances under which state agencies may bypass competitive bidding procedures to address urgent security challenges. On November 28, 2025, Thailand’s Ministry of Finance published the Ministerial Regulation Determining Cases of Procurement by Specific Method (No. 6) B.E. 2568 in the Royal Gazette, introducing a new pathway for procuring supplies and services needed to address cyber and military threats that may affect the stability of government agencies or the nation. For technology vendors, cybersecurity firms, and defense contractors, this regulatory change creates immediate opportunities to engage directly with government buyers facing urgent security challenges. New Fast-Track Category for Security Threats The regulation amends Thailand’s Public Procurement and Supplies Management Act B.E. 2560 (2017) to add a new category of procurement that qualifies for the “specific method”—a noncompetitive, direct selection process. Previously, agencies could use this expedited method only in limited circumstances, such as emergencies, cases with proprietary technology requirements, or national security operations. The new provision explicitly covers procurement of supplies related to preventing or resolving cyber or military threats that could impact the stability of a state agency or the country. This addition recognizes the urgent nature of modern security challenges, where competitive bidding timelines may leave agencies vulnerable during critical threat windows. State agencies dealing with active cyberattacks, preparing defensive measures against anticipated threats, or responding to military security concerns can now move directly to negotiate with qualified vendors rather than conducting lengthy public tender processes. Vendor Considerations Vendors offering cybersecurity solutions now have a regulatory avenue to work directly with government clients when stability concerns are present. These solutions include threat detection systems, anti-ransomware tools, incident response services, firewalls, and security consulting. Similarly, defense contractors providing military equipment or specialized security supplies can pursue direct engagement channels where traditional procurement methods would create
Read More