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

June 30, 2025

Vietnam Shifts Some IP Duties to the Provincial Level

Subscribe to Updates

Vietnam is making notable strides in decentralization, aiming to grant greater autonomy to local government entities to streamline administrative procedures. As part of this effort, the government issued Decree No. 133/2025/ND-CP on decentralization of state management of the Ministry of Science and Technology dated June 12, 2025 (Decree 133). Effective from July 1, 2025, Decree 133 decentralizes and delegates numerous state management functions—including in intellectual property (IP) and technology transfer—to provincial-level People’s Committees (PCs). This reform signals a profound shift in how IP rights are administered and enforced across Vietnam. While this offers new opportunities for IP owners, agents, and innovators, it also introduces additional operational complexities.

Impact on IP and Technology Transfer

Decree 133 significantly reallocates responsibilities in IP and technology transfer, primarily to provincial-level PCs. Provincial PCs and other provincial authorities are now empowered to handle a wide range of tasks, including but not limited to the following:

  • Issuance of duplicates and reissuance of certificates of registration.
  • Registration of license agreements for the transfer of usage rights for industrial property objects (e.g., trademarks, patents) and recording amendments, extensions, or early terminations of such agreements.
  • Enforcing decisions on compulsory licensing of patent use rights.
  • Evaluation and approval of technology transfer contracts—a key step in facilitating localized technological advancements.
  • Permitting the establishment of foreign-invested scientific organizations and their branches, to encourage foreign direct investment in local R&D and technology development.
  • Approval of provincial-level R&D tasks, aligning with local socio-economic development priorities.

Legal Implications

The decentralization and delegation brought forth by Decree 133 carry several significant legal implications:

  • Echoing Decree 133, the Intellectual Property Office of Vietnam issued Notification No. 2351/TB-SHTT on June 26, 2025, announcing the cessation of 19 administrative procedures at the national level. Specifically, from July 1, 2025, the IP Office will no longer accept requests related to procedures that have been delegated to provincial-level PCs under Decree 133. Requests submitted to the IP Office before this date will continue to be processed by the IP Office in accordance with previous regulations.
  • While aimed at streamlining procedures, the shift places significant demands on provincial authorities, requiring a robust pool of qualified IP and technology transfer professionals. This necessitates significant investment in capacity building, training of personnel, and establishment of robust internal procedures to handle the new functions effectively.
  • Despite overall guidance from the Ministry of Science and Technology (MOST), there might be subtle variations in the implementation of Decree 133 across different provinces. Businesses and IP agents will need to be diligent in understanding specific provincial guidelines and practices.

Potential Challenges and Areas for Clarification

  • Alternative option for duplicates of protection titles: In preparation for this transition, on June 3, 2025, the IP Office launched a system for issuing certified electronic copies of applications and registration certificates. Upon approval of a request, an applicant will receive an email containing the application or registration number, a document link, and a lookup code. These electronic documents carry the same legal value as physical copies, providing a more convenient alternative for IP owners—especially amid the transition to local authorities. However, it remains unclear whether these electronic copies can be used for procedures such as assignment or recordal of changes to IP registrations, which could impact how effectively IP owners can navigate the new decentralized system.
  • Coordination between central and local authorities: One of the immediate challenges highlighted by legal practitioners is the need for clear coordination, especially for procedures that span both central and local jurisdictions. Clear coordination mechanisms are essential to avoid administrative overlap and delays.
  • Power of attorney requirements: Clarity is needed on whether previously submitted power of attorney documents to central authorities can be reused for provincial filings or if new originals will be required.
  • Consistency and uniformity: Ensuring consistent application of IP laws and technology transfer regulations across all provinces will be paramount to prevent discrepancies and maintain a level playing field for businesses. The supervisory role of MOST will be critical in this regard.

Temporary Shift for Testing and Adjustment

Decree 133 is valid until March 1, 2027, unless extended or replaced earlier. This timeframe coincides with the restructuring of local administrative units and suggests that the decentralization of IP procedures is being implemented as a pilot phase, allowing time for adjustments based on real-world feedback.

Overall, Decree 133 represents a bold step towards a more decentralized and efficient science and technology administration in Vietnam. While it brings promising prospects for expediting processes and fostering local innovation, successful implementation will rely heavily on the issuance of clear and practical guidelines from MOST, as well as the proactive development of robust administrative mechanisms and human resources at the provincial level.

Businesses and IP rights holders are advised to stay abreast of the forthcoming detailed instructions and adapt their strategies accordingly to navigate this evolving regulatory administrative landscape.

Related Professionals

Practices

Intellectual Property

Location

RELATED INSIGHTS​ 

July 21, 2025
Distinctiveness is a fundamental requirement for a trademark’s registration and protection under Thai law. The Thai courts typically assess distinctiveness based on a mark’s inherent characteristics rather than its use, as proving acquired distinctiveness through use requires substantial evidence, including the duration of use, extent of distribution and promotional efforts. However, the Intellectual Property and International Trade Court (IP & IT Court) has recently ruled that the figurative mark WEPLAY had acquired distinctiveness through use – an uncommon ruling under Thai trademark law. Subsequently, the Court of Appeal for Specialised Cases affirmed the mark’s inherent distinctiveness based on a holistic assessment of its components. This article discusses the criteria for proving both inherent and acquired distinctiveness, offering examples from both courts to provide valuable insights into case preparation and understanding of how the courts assess distinctiveness. Background In 2017 the plaintiff filed a trademark application for the mark depicted below for goods in Class 28, including toy building blocks: The registrar rejected the application on the grounds of non-distinctiveness under Section 7 of the Trademark Act. The plaintiff appealed to the Board of Trademarks, which considered that, when the term ‘weplay’ is used for goods in Class 28, it is descriptive of the nature of the goods applied for as “playthings”. Therefore, ‘weplay’ was deemed nondistinctive under Section 7, Paragraph 2(2) of the Trademark Act. IP & IT Court decision In 2024 the IP & IT Court ruled that the term ‘weplay’ is not a coined or invented word; instead, it is a combination of ‘we’ and ‘play’, conveying the meaning of ‘we play’. When the term is used for goods in Class 28, it describes the nature of the goods as “playthings”. Consequently, the mark was deemed non-distinctive. However, the court considered the evidence presented by the plaintiff,
Read More
July 14, 2025
Life sciences specialists from Tilleke & Gibbins have updated the firm’s guide to pharmaceutical data exclusivity regulations and practices in Southeast Asia. This guide contains quick-reference information on the availability of data exclusivity protections and limitations in Cambodia, Indonesia, Laos, Malaysia, Myanmar, Thailand, and Vietnam. Developing and launching a new drug on a commercial scale requires an enormous amount of time and investment in research and development (R&D), including pre-clinical testing and clinical trials. When considering the aggregate amount of drug development costs, it is important to recognize that this includes not only the investment in developing new drugs that get approved by a government food and drug regulator and are successfully brought to market, but also the R&D expenditures on a large number of potential pharmaceutical compounds and products that never actually make it to market. In particular, considerable investment is required in order to conduct and produce clinical trial data—to prove safety, efficacy and effectiveness of a new drug—that would warrant marketing approval by the regulatory authority. Such data is proprietary in nature and highly valuable for a research-based pharmaceutical company that develops an original drug. On the other hand, patent law typically confers generic drug manufacturers with the ability to engage in various preparatory activities with a view to obtaining marketing approval for a generic product before the patent for the original drug expires (commonly known as a “Bolar provision”). Since a generic drug maker may submit an application for marketing approval of a generic product before the relevant patent expires, the extent to which the drug originator’s data submitted to the regulatory authority is protected—or in other words, the extent to which the generic company may rely on the drug originator’s previously filed data, which underpins the safety and efficacy of the drug, to support
Read More
June 27, 2025
Three American giants are actively protecting their intellectual property rights against generative AI, as two legal battles commence on both sides of the Atlantic. In the UK, Seattle-based media company Getty Images accuses UK-based Stability AI of multiple IP infringements. In the US, The Walt Disney Company and Universal Studios are teaming up against Midjourney, an AI startup, with their main ground being copyright infringement. Both cases are centered around questions legal minds have been posing since the introduction of generative AI: Is the output of generative AI an infringement? And who is ultimately responsible for the output, the platform or the user? Getty Images v. Stability AI Getty initially filed a claim in the High Court in 2023, which resulted in Stability applying for reverse summary judgment on the grounds that Getty had no real prospect of success, arguing that their operations took place outside the UK. However, the High Court judge hearing the case decided that the claims brought by Getty did have a real prospect of succeeding in court. Despite this, Stability saw a small victory when the court ruled that the representative action brought by Getty would not succeed due to the difficulties in identifying who qualified for the class. The proposed class was comprised of 50,000 rightsholders who alleged their rights were also infringed. Stability was successful in arguing that identifying these individuals would be challenging due to the unclear definition of the class. This current trial is centered around four main grounds: Copyright infringement. Getty accuses Stability of using content that Getty owns or has an exclusive license for when training their model, Stable Diffusion, resulting in the generated output containing substantial parts of that content. Getty is also alleging secondary copyright infringement, arguing that Stability is importing an article into the UK
Read More
June 26, 2025
As modern business strategies increasingly embrace sustainability, the influence of ESG principles is reshaping product design, packaging, and brand protection. From label-free bottles to the legal importance of 3D marks in Thailand, these developments highlight the growing connection between environmental responsibility and intellectual property. The Rise of ESG ESG principles have become critical in shaping business strategies worldwide. Companies are increasingly required to disclose ESG data, which influences investor decisions, loans, and consumer behavior. Studies show that consumers are willing to pay more for sustainable packaging, and businesses with strong ESG commitments often achieve higher growth rates. Product Minimization Trend One sector experiencing significant transformation is the consumer product industry, where brands worldwide are adapting their packaging to align with ESG principles. A notable approach is packaging minimization, exemplified by Pepsi’s introduction of its first label-free PET bottle in China in 2022. Similarly, in Thailand, several bottled water brands have embraced label-free designs, including Sprinkle drinking water’s “Redesign to Reduce” initiative and other similar efforts. These shifts not only enhance brand perception but are also warmly welcomed by consumers and business associates alike. For instance, Cathay Pacific has introduced label-free bottled water on select flights and cabins as part of their ongoing commitment to boosting onboard recycling efforts. From Design to Distinctiveness with 3D Marks Packaging has evolved into a critical component of brand identity, blending functionality with distinctiveness to strengthen consumer recognition and loyalty. This shift carries significant implications for intellectual property. Protecting these designs is no longer optional but essential, given their substantial commercial value. Securing legal protection—whether through design rights or three-dimensional (3D) trademarks—has become a strategic necessity. In an era shaped by sustainability and innovation, safeguarding distinctive packaging is not just a precaution but a fundamental step in maintaining competitive advantage and ensuring enduring brand
Read More