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

March 6, 2025

Vietnamese Government Restructuring: Impacts on Intellectual Property

Subscribe to Updates

Vietnam’s government is currently undergoing a significant restructuring, consolidating and eliminating various agencies with the aim of streamlining operations and increasing efficiency. The restructuring will bring notable changes to the country’s intellectual property (IP) landscape. We discuss below key developments that may influence IP protection and enforcement in Vietnam in the coming years.

Mergers of Ministries

One of the most notable changes in the restructuring is the merger of several ministries, including the Ministry of Information and Communications (MIC) and the Ministry of Science and Technology (MOST). Vietnam’s Intellectual Property Office is a unit under MOST; therefore, this merger is expected to impact various aspects of IP administration and enforcement.

With the newly merged ministry—which is expected to retain the name of MOST—actively supporting the development of the digital economy, further advancements in digital tools for IP administration and prosecution are anticipated. This could include enhancements in e-filing, online procedures, and digital payment systems, contributing to greater accessibility and efficiency in IP-related services.

Domain name disputes can also expect to see a more coordinated approach under the new ministry. Previously, jurisdiction over domain name disputes was divided between MIC and MOST, sometimes leading to procedural complexities. With both areas now under a single ministry, these matters are expected to be handled more seamlessly, potentially with a model aligned with the Uniform Domain Name Dispute Resolution Policy (UDRP).

Structural Changes in Inspection Authorities

The restructuring also affects inspection authorities responsible for IP enforcement, particularly those under MOST and the Ministry of Culture, Sports, and Tourism (MOCST). These changes may cause temporary delays in administrative enforcement actions:

  • The MOST Inspectorate, which handles industrial property violations, may experience slower enforcement during the transition.
  • The MOCST Inspectorate, responsible for copyright enforcement, may face similar disruptions.

However, these delays are expected to be temporary, with enforcement efficiency likely to improve once the new structures are fully implemented.

Market Surveillance Department Now Managed by Provincial Governments

The Market Surveillance Department (MSD), previously under the Ministry of Industry and Trade, has been transferred to the management of provincial governments. This decentralization may initially impact the coordination and consistency of IP raids and enforcement actions. However, the central government has instructed provincial authorities to maintain enforcement efficiency, minimizing potential delays. Over time, this change could lead to more localized and responsive enforcement, tailored to the specific needs of each province.

Streamlining the Court System

The restructuring extends to Vietnam’s judiciary, with significant changes expected at both provincial and district levels:

  • Some provinces are set to merge, reducing the total number from the current 63.
  • District-level courts may be eliminated, aligning with the recent removal of district-level police forces.

These changes are anticipated to enhance judicial independence by reducing local government influence on court proceedings. However, the restructuring may delay the establishment of a dedicated IP court, initially expected by the end of 2025. Once operational, the streamlined court system is expected to provide faster, more consistent rulings on IP disputes, strengthening judicial enforcement of IP rights.

Minimal Impact on Customs Enforcement

Customs enforcement, a key component of IP protection at Vietnam’s borders, is expected to experience minimal disruption despite the ongoing merger and streamlining of customs authorities. The core functions of intercepting counterfeit goods and enforcing IP rights at border checkpoints will continue as before, ensuring that cross-border IP protection remains robust.

Outlook

Vietnam’s government restructuring is set to reshape the country’s IP landscape, bringing both challenges and opportunities. While temporary delays may occur, the consolidation of IP administration under a new ministry with a stronger focus on technology advancement, improved coordination in domain name disputes, and streamlined enforcement mechanisms is expected to enhance efficiency, consistency, and judicial independence in the long run.

This article first appeared in Managing Intellectual Property.

Related Professionals

Practices

Intellectual Property

Location

RELATED INSIGHTS​ 

July 15, 2026
Ambush marketing refers to a strategy in which a business associates itself with an event, campaign, or brand without paying for official sponsorship rights. The tactic is most visible in sports, concerts, and festivals, where official sponsors have invested substantially for exclusivity. Ambush marketers may use suggestive wording, event-themed imagery, athlete endorsements, venue-adjacent promotions, or social media campaigns implying a commercial connection with the event. Common Forms of Ambush Marketing Ambush marketing typically takes one of the following forms: Direct ambushing: using event names, logos, or mascots suggesting authorization Coattail ambushing: sponsoring an athlete or broadcaster connected with the event Subtle ambushing: themed advertising, venue-adjacent campaigns, or similar visual cues The legal analysis in each case turns on whether the marketing crosses from permissible event-based advertising into infringement, passing off, deception, or wrongful exploitation of goodwill, and the risk assessment is necessarily fact-specific. Thailand has no dedicated ambush marketing statute, so legality depends on execution. A campaign that merely comments on a public event may be permissible, but one that uses protected marks, creates consumer confusion, misrepresents sponsorship status, or makes unsubstantiated claims may trigger liability under various Thai laws, as laid out below. Ambush Marketing and Thailand’s Trademark Act The Trademark Act B.E. 2534 (1991) is the primary tool for addressing campaigns that use registered trademarks, event names, logos, mascots, or confusingly similar signs. The law gives registered trademark owners the exclusive right to use their mark for registered goods, and infringement risk arises when a nonsponsor uses an event mark or a confusingly similar sign in advertising. Even referential or playful use may create liability if it causes public confusion as to sponsorship or commercial connection. The law also preserves passing-off claims for unregistered marks. This matters because event names, taglines, or mascots may not always be
Read More
July 13, 2026
When Decree No. 186/2026/ND-CP (Decree 186) takes effect on July 15, 2026, it will introduce the most significant reform of Vietnam’s administrative IP enforcement framework since Decree 99/2013/ND-CP was issued in 2013. These changes are expected to make administrative enforcement faster, more accessible, and better suited to the realities of modern IP disputes. Below are the principal reforms and their practical implications for rights holders and enforcement practitioners. The End of Notarization and Consular Legalization Among the most welcome procedural changes is the abolition of the notarization and consular legalization requirement for powers of attorney (POA) submitted in administrative enforcement proceedings. Under the previous regime, foreign rights holders were generally required to execute a POA, then have it notarized and consular legalized (if seeking customs recordal). In practice, this process frequently delayed enforcement by four to eight weeks, often long enough for infringing goods to disappear before authorities could intervene. Decree 186 removes this bottleneck, now requiring only an original or certified copy of the POA. If the document is in a foreign language, a Vietnamese translation is sufficient, provided it is certified by a competent authority or confirmed by the authorized Vietnamese IP representative. Consular legalization and notarization are no longer required. For rights holders, the practical impact is substantial. Administrative enforcement files that previously took weeks to prepare can now be completed in a matter of days, allowing much faster responses in time-sensitive matters such as warehouse raids, border interventions, and trade-fair enforcement. The decree also introduces a useful administrative simplification. Where an original POA has already been submitted to the same enforcement authority and remains valid, applicants may rely on a copy of that earlier submission by identifying the previous case file. This eliminates unnecessary duplication for rights holders pursuing multiple enforcement actions before the same
Read More
July 9, 2026
Recycling, upcycling, and refill-packaging models are now widely promoted as ways to reduce waste, lower carbon emissions, and respond to consumer demand for sustainable products. However, complications arise when these environmentally driven trends intersect with intellectual property law—particularly where reused or altered packaging continues to display third parties’ registered trademarks. Adding to this complexity, Thailand’s draft Sustainable Packaging Management Act aims to introduce new environmental compliance obligations that businesses must navigate alongside existing trademark concerns. Recycling and upcycling packaging may infringe trademark rights, especially in cases not protected by the first-sale doctrine—the principle that a trademark owner’s rights over a particular mark-bearing product end once the owner first sells it. Furthermore, even refill packaging carries legal risk due to specific statutory prohibitions under Thai law. Compounding these challenges, the draft Sustainable Packaging Management Act will impose extended producer responsibility (EPR) obligations on manufacturers and brand owners, requiring them to manage packaging throughout its lifecycle. These overlapping legal frameworks could deter manufacturers from pursuing ESG-aligned business models unless businesses understand how to navigate both trademark and environmental requirements. Under Thai law, this issue remains uncertain because the Trademark Act does not expressly codify the first sale doctrine, also known as the exhaustion of trademark rights. Generally, this doctrine provides that once a trademark owner has lawfully sold goods bearing its trademark, the owner’s right to control further resale of those particular goods is exhausted. The rationale is that the owner has already received commercial benefit from the first authorized sale; therefore, the purchaser should be free to resell or otherwise dispose of the goods. Although the doctrine is not expressly codified in the Trademark Act, Thai courts have recognized it in relation to genuine goods and parallel imports, as seen in a Supreme Court Judgment No. 2817/2543 in which the
Read More
July 6, 2026
Indonesia’s regulation on reporting online intellectual property (IP) infringement provides comprehensive procedural guidance for IP rights holders and their licensees in reporting online infringement complaints. Issued in December 2025 by the Ministry of Law as Regulation No. 47 of 2025 regarding Handling of Intellectual Property Infringement Reports in Electronic Systems, this regulation covers all types of IP rights. It also specifies documentation when reporting infringement, and lays out the procedures for examination, verification, and enforcement actions. Submission of Complaints Complainants may submit reports through the online system of the Directorate General of Intellectual Property (DGIP) or in person at the DGIP office. Complaints may also be filed through an authorized proxy. Under the regulation, complainants are required to provide the following information and documents: Personal details of the complainant; Brief description of the protected work or subject matter (i.e., type of IP and name or address of the infringing website, portal, account, or application, or a link to the location of the infringing content); Complete description of the alleged infringement; Certificate of registration or recordal of the relevant IP; Recordal of IP license agreement, if any; and Other supporting evidence. Verification and Examination Process Upon receiving a complaint, the responsible formality officer may request clarification or additional supporting documents. In the latter case, the complainant must then submit the necessary administrative documents within 14 days of the notification date. Once the documentation is deemed complete and sufficient, the case will be formally registered. Subsequently, the DGIP will establish a verification team to handle online IP violations, which will include the Civil Servant Investigator (PPNS), the Ministry of Communication and Digital Affairs, experts with relevant expertise in IP, and representatives from related associations such as AVISI (Indonesian Video Streaming Association). After examining the report, the team will prepare the Minutes
Read More