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​ 

October 23, 2025
Myanmar’s customs authorities have introduced new procedures allowing copyright holders to protect their intellectual property from infringing goods at the border. The Ministry of Finance and Revenue issued Notification No. 107/2025 on September 11, 2025, establishing rules and requirements for customs recordation under the Copyright Law of 2019. The notification includes eight official forms for copyright-related customs matters—three for applicants and five for the Customs Department. This was followed by Customs Department Announcement No. 1/2025, dated September 29, 2025, which details the security required for suspended goods. Customs recordation provides a proactive mechanism for rights holders to prevent importation of pirated works. By registering their works with the Customs Department, rights holders gain access to enhanced border enforcement measures, empowering customs officials to identify and intercept pirated goods before they enter the market. While copyright protection in Myanmar arises automatically under the Copyright Law of 2019, a registration certificate for copyright or related rights is required to apply for customs recordation. Customs Recordation Registered copyright and related rights holders can apply directly or through authorized legal representatives for customs recordation to prevent cross-border trade in pirated works. Applications must use the prescribed form and include all supporting documentary evidence specified in the form. The Customs Department will notify applicants within 15 days of receiving their application. Each recordation remains valid for two years from the date of acceptance and may be renewed for successive two-year periods by submitting a renewal application at least 30 days before expiration. Rights holders whose works are recorded must notify the Customs Department within five days of any amendment or withdrawal of information at the Intellectual Property Department. Suspension Orders Registered copyright and related rights holders can request a suspension order to prevent release of pirated goods into free circulation, regardless of whether they
Read More
October 3, 2025
In Thailand, the rise in online intellectual property infringement has prompted authorities to strengthen enforcement efforts, including the use of website-blocking orders under Section 20(3) of the Computer Crime Act B.E. 2560 (2017) (CCA). This provision authorizes the Ministry of Digital Economy and Society (MDES), with court approval, to block or remove computer data that constitutes a criminal offence under IP law. Since its implementation, the procedure has undergone several developments, which is an encouraging sign of progress. Website-blocking procedure In practice, website-blocking orders under Section 20(3) of the CCA are primarily used for copyright and trademark infringement. While such orders are legally applicable to patent infringement, their use remains challenging due to the difficulty of proving infringement through administrative procedures. The website-blocking procedure begins when an IP owner identifies online infringing content. For copyright infringement, which is considered a compoundable offence, the IP owner is required to first file a police report with the specialized police unit known as the Economic Crime Suppression Division (ECD) prior to filing the website-blocking application with the Department of Intellectual Property (DIP). For trademark infringement cases, the application can be filed directly with the DIP without a prior police report. The DIP reviews the evidence and, if infringement is confirmed, forwards it to the MDES for further consideration. If the case is deemed valid, the MDES requests a court order to block the infringing website. Once granted, the MDES notifies the internet service providers (ISPs) to block access to the specified website. Website blocking procedure in Thailand Recent advancements in website-blocking actions Seamless collaboration through digital integration. Thailand has made significant progress in digitizing its website-blocking procedures to improve efficiency and transparency. At present, all website-blocking applications and supporting evidence must be submitted in electronic format. These systems have significantly reduced processing
Read More
September 24, 2025
Online shopping in Thailand is more accessible than ever, with global platforms, local social media shops, and entertainment-driven social commerce enabling instant purchases. However, this convenience comes with rising concerns over digital intellectual property (IP) infringement, including counterfeit goods, pirated content, and unauthorized brand usage. At first glance, online platforms appear to offer quick solutions. Most major e-commerce sites, social media channels, and social commerce platforms provide “notice and takedown” systems, where IP owners can file complaints and request the removal of listings that infringe IP rights, such as trademarks and copyrights. These tools are certainly useful, as seeing a fake product vanish from a platform feels like progress. But the reality is less reassuring. The counterfeit goods themselves remain in warehouses, markets, or shops, ready to be resold. Sellers whose accounts are taken down often return within days under new names or accounts. In other words, a takedown is like cutting weeds without pulling out the roots: they always grow back. While notice and takedown tools are widely available and can be managed internally by most IP owners, their impact is often short-lived. IP owners seeking more effective, lasting protection need to take a more strategic and multilayered approach. The same applies to online piracy. Unauthorized streaming websites that offer free access to movies, TV shows, or sports broadcasts have become widespread in Thailand. To combat this, rightsholders can request website blocking under the Computer Crime Act, through the Ministry of Digital Economy and Society and the courts. Once requests are approved, internet service providers are ordered to block access to infringing sites. Blocking orders can be effective in disrupting large-scale piracy operations, but they also face limitations—pirate sites frequently reappear under new domains. Strategic Protection Whether the infringing material is physical counterfeit goods or intangible streaming content,
Read More
September 4, 2025
On June 6, 2025, the Superior People’s Court in Hanoi overturned a non-use cancellation decision by the Intellectual Property Office of Vietnam, a rare and impactful occurrence. In a ruling that may help clarify the enforcement of Vietnam’s IP Law, the court held that valid trademark use can be established through commercial arrangements where the brand owner maintains actual control over the use of the mark, and is not confined to relationships governed by a so-called “formal license agreement. Background: Cross-Border Use, Local Challenge A Singapore company owns a well-known brand of consumer products that has gained recognition across Southeast Asia. In recent years, the brand has been targeted by several unauthorized trademark filings in Vietnam. In one such instance, a local Vietnamese trading company—previously linked to the production and export of counterfeit goods to neighboring countries—filed a non-use cancellation against the Singapore company’s mark and sought to register it under its own name. If the cancellation had been upheld, it would have enabled a complete hijacking of the brand. The IP holder operates in Vietnam through a structured cross-border supply chain. Under an agreement between two related foreign entities, one of which managed regional operations, production orders were placed through a designated Vietnamese company. While the Vietnamese manufacturer was not a party to the agreement, its role in using the mark was recognized and governed by internal and commercial documentation. The Vietnamese manufacturer lawfully obtained the necessary permits, regulatory approvals, and customs clearances for producing the goods in Vietnam. These activities were supported by banking records and internal communications, evidencing active, continuous use of the mark in Vietnam. However, the IP Office concluded that this use did not meet the statutory criteria because the Vietnamese manufacturer did not have a direct license agreement with the brand owner, as
Read More