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 30, 2023

Vietnam’s Amended IP Law Changes Requirements for IP Agents

Managing Intellectual Property

Vietnam’s Law on Intellectual Property was comprehensively amended in 2022 (“2022 IP Law”), and the amended law came into effect (with the exception of a few provisions) on 1 January 2023. Along with amendments of substantive matters, the revised version also touches upon the requirements for providing IP representation (agent) services, at both the organizational and individual level.

Requirements for Organizations

Article 154 of the previous IP Law provided the following conditions for organizations to act as IP representation service organizations:

  1. The organization is a lawfully established and operating law-practicing enterprise, cooperative or organization, or a scientific and technological service organization, except for foreign law-practicing organizations operating in Vietnam.
  2. The organization has the function of providing IP representation services stated in its business registration certificate or operation registration certificate.
  3. The head(s) of the organization or a person(s) authorized by the head(s) of the organization has a certificate for practicing IP representation services.

While the first requirement remains unchanged, the 2022 IP Law has removed the second requirement, and revised the third requirement to be more relaxed. Specifically, the amended provision only requires that there must be at least one individual holding a certificate for practicing IP representation services in each IP representation service organization. (Regarding the second requirement, while it is no longer stated in the IP Law, this does not mean that any organization can practice IP representation services, because this is a conditional business line and only organizations who meet the conditions for providing such services, provided in other legislation, can do business in this field.)

Requirements for Individuals

At the individual level, the law both tightens and loosens the requirements. Under the former law, to be granted a certificate for practicing IP representation services, the individual must:

  1. Be a Vietnamese citizen with full capacity for civil acts;
  2. Reside permanently in Vietnam;
  3. Have a university degree;
  4. Have either directly worked in the field of IP law or conducted examinations for IP applications at national or international IP offices for at least five years, or have completed a training course on IP Law recognized by a state authority;
  5. Not be a civil servant or employee working in a state authority in relation to establishment and enforcement of IP rights; and
  6. Have passed an IP agent examination organized by a relevant authority.

Among the conditions above, the last is the most challenging. It is widely known that it is extremely difficult to pass an IP agent examination in Vietnam, as the pass rate in recent years has typically been lower than 10%. Because of that, through the end of 2022, only 349 individuals had been granted certificates for practicing IP representation services (“IP agents”), and 294 organizations had been permitted to act as IP representation service organizations in Vietnam.

The 2022 IP Law divides IP representation services for individuals into two categories: (i) for inventions, industrial designs or layout designs (“patent agents”); and (ii) for trademarks, geographical indications, trade names, anti-unfair competition and trade secrets (“trademark agents”). The requirements for each category are different.

To become a patent agent, the 2022 IP Law requires that the individual must have a bachelor’s or equivalent degree in natural sciences or engineering (while under the former law, any bachelor’s degree would suffice). The other conditions mentioned above remain unchanged for patent agents. As such, generally, the conditions for patent agent have become more stringent.

The 2022 IP Law maintains the same six conditions for trademark agents as in the old law. However, it has opened another way to become a trademark agent by creating a new set of conditions especially for lawyers. Accordingly, any qualified lawyer who is residing in Vietnam and has completed a training course on IP Law recognized by a state authority could become a trademark agent.

Needless to say, this makes it easier than before for a lawyer to become a trademark agent, as they no longer need to fulfill conditions (iv), and (v). More importantly, condition (vi) – passing an IP agent examination, which is the most difficult condition as mentioned above – has been replaced by a much simpler condition, which is to simply complete a training course on IP law.

Likely Impact of the Changes

When viewing the changes in the requirements for practicing IP representation services at both the organizational level and the individual level, it is now clear that local law firms will benefit the most from such changes. As the law no longer requires the IP agent (or patent/trademark agent) to be the head or authorized by the head of the firm, it will be very easy for a law firm to appoint any of its lawyers to attend a course on IP law (which often can be completed in 6 months and costs less than USD 1,000), and then that lawyer will become a trademark agent, and that law firm will become an IP representation service organization.

Taking into account that there are more than 16,000 lawyers and 6,000 law firms in Vietnam, it is expected that the number of trademark agents and IP representation service organizations will be on the rise in the time to come.

This article first appeared in Managing Intellectual Property.

RELATED INSIGHTS​ 

July 24, 2026
Indonesia has updated its fee framework for intellectual property (IP)-related government services, with implications for IP owners, licensees, lenders, digital platforms, and businesses operating in the country. Government Regulation No. 30 of 2026 on Types and Tariffs of Non-Tax State Revenue Applicable to the Ministry of Law (GR 30/2026) was promulgated on July 2, 2026, and will take effect on August 1, 2026. Key Takeaways GR 30/2026, which replaces the relevant IP service fees under Government Regulation No. 45 of 2024, reorganizes the fee schedule into separate categories for copyright, industrial designs, patents, layout designs of integrated circuits, trade secrets, trademarks, geographical indications, IP enforcement, and other categories. The most commercially relevant changes include a new copyright recordation tariff exemption for songs and music, higher fees for several trademark and geographical indication services, new IP enforcement service fees, and a new fee type for registration of fiduciary security over IP rights objects. In addition, this is the first major update for trademark fees in approximately 10 years. GR 30/2026 is significant not only as a fee update but also as a further indication of Indonesia’s increasing recognition of IP as a financeable commercial asset. By expressly assigning fees to the registration of fiduciary security over IP rights objects, the regulation places IP-backed collateral filings within the Ministry of Law’s administrative service framework. While GR 30/2026 does not create a new secured-transactions regime, this development is relevant for lenders, borrowers, and IP owners structuring financing arrangements secured by trademarks, patents, copyrights, industrial designs, or other registrable IP rights in Indonesia. Copyright: New Fee Exemption for Songs and Music Recordation For copyright, GR 30/2026 creates a fee-exempt category for recordation of works or related-rights products for songs or music, while maintaining a separate category for other works and related-rights products. It
July 21, 2026
Thailand’s Ministry of Digital Economy and Society (MDES) published a notification establishing an expedited court-ordered takedown mechanism for online content in cases of “urgent necessity.” The notification, which was issued on July 17, 2026, under the Computer Crime Act B.E. 2550 (2007), as amended, took effect the following day. It significantly expands the categories of content subject to rapid government-initiated removal. Content Categories Subject to Takedown The notification defines “urgent necessity” (section 20, paragraph 5, of the Computer Crime Act) as circumstances where any delay in suppressing computer data may impact national security, religion, the monarchy, good morals, social culture, or public order. In this regard, it establishes four broad categories of content: Computer Crime Act offenses. National security offenses. IP and other criminal offenses, where it is contrary to public order or good morals and a competent officer has requested its suppression. Content contrary to public order or good morals, a broad residual category encompassing 14 subcategories approved by the Computer Data Screening Committee. The fourth category is the most expansive. Its 14 subcategories include: Content defaming, mocking, satirizing, or devaluing the monarchy. Online gambling advertising or facilitation. Offering illegal firearms for sale. Offering baraku (hookah) products or e-cigarettes for sale. Offering cannabis inflorescences or processed cannabis products for sale. Advertising or soliciting prostitution. Content inciting violence, hatred, or social division. Unauthorized overseas employment advertising. Offering boiled kratom juice for sale. Online sale or advertising of alcoholic beverages. Content satirizing or degrading Buddhism. Money lending at interest rates exceeding legally prescribed limits. Advertising or disseminating information about surrogacy services. Forgery of documents, cards, or official documents. Enforcement Procedure In cases of urgent necessity, a competent official assigned by the MDES permanent secretary must file a petition with supporting evidence to the court with jurisdiction, requesting an order to
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
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