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

April 21, 2026

Vietnam’s Trademark Landscape Gets a Modern Overhaul

Subscribe to Updates

Vietnam continues to refine its intellectual property framework to align with the 2025 amendments to the Law on Intellectual Property (IP Law). On March 31, 2026, the government issued Decree 100/2026/ND-CP (Decree 100), which substantially amends Decree 65/2023/ND-CP detailing the implementation of the IP Law (Decree 65). On the same day, the Ministry of Science and Technology released Circular 10/2026/TT-BKHCN (Circular 10), providing detailed procedural guidance and new forms. Both instruments took effect on April 1, 2026, along with the amended IP Law.

While the updates touch on every IP right, trademark owners and brand strategists will find several practical and forward-looking changes that directly affect filing strategy, examination timelines, portfolio management, and enforcement readiness.

1. Fast-Track Substantive Examination for Eligible Applications

One of the most business-friendly innovations is the new fast-track substantive examination pathway for applications meeting specified eligibility criteria. Successful fast-track applications enjoy a shortened substantive examination period of three months. This offers a significant competitive edge for tech-driven or regulated-sector brands.

If the mark is identical or similar to a mark in another person’s trademark application with an earlier filing date in the case of a priority application that has not yet been processed, the fast-track process will return to the ordinary process. However, the law does not touch on cases where marks under fast-track examination face office action due to other reasons (i.e. lack of distinctiveness, confusingly similar to others’ copyright, trade name, industrial design, etc.)

2. AI-Generated Trademarks Receive Clear Protection Pathway

Decree 100 explicitly addresses the use of artificial intelligence (AI) in IP creation, amending Article 10a of Decree 65 to confirm that trademarks created with AI systems are fully protectable, provided they meet the standard requirements of registration. Trademarks face no additional “human authorship” hurdle (unlike patents or industrial designs). Brand owners using generative-AI tools, however, are encouraged to document their own role in selecting, refining, and finalizing the mark to strengthen enforcement if challenged.

3. Digital-First Procedures, Streamlined Formality Examination, Shorter Response Deadlines

The new regulations confirm that electronic filing is now the default with equivalent legal weight to paper. All official communications (examination reports, oppositions, decisions) are issued electronically unless paper is requested, making a digital IP ecosystem.

An important change under Circular 10 is the shorter examination and response deadlines, namely:

  • After completion of the formality examination, the IP Office will issue a Decision of Refusal for any non-compliant applications. For formally accepted applications, the IPO no longer issues a separate Decision on Acceptance of Formality Examination. Instead, the application is directly transferred for publication.
  • Each week, the IP Office publishes on its official portal a list of applications transferred for publication, clearly stating the application number, filing date, and the specific date of transfer for publication. Applications are made public immediately upon acceptance, including on platforms such as WIPO Publish, even before official announcement in the IP Gazette.
  • The time limit to reply to a substantive examination notification/provisional refusal is reduced from three months to two months. Similarly, the deadline to pay the granting fee is also shortened to two months.
  • For Madrid international registrations designating Vietnam, the time limit to respond to a provisional refusal remains three months. Procedures for conversions and subsequent designations are fully harmonized with domestic rules.

4. Enhanced Transparency of Trademark Application

Circular 10 significantly enhances transparency and efficiency in the trademark application process through several key improvements.

  • Updated application form: Fields are clearer for faster processing and fewer errors.
  • More flexibility with priority documents: A copy of the first application(s) is acceptable. In practice, prints from EU/US databases often suffice; certified copies are generally no longer strictly required. If priority documents are missing, formality examination begins after supplementation or after 3 months.
  • Color claims: If no specific color protection is claimed, the specimen must be presented in black and white.
  • Proactive disclaimer: Applicants can proactively disclaim non-distinctive parts directly in the application form.

5. Enhancing Transparency and Detailing Trademark Examination

Circular 10 also provides clearer guidance on distinctiveness, similarity/confusion tests, descriptiveness, and well-known recognition, including details on cases in which marks, including sound marks, are not distinctive. If a sound mark contains linguistic content, that linguistic content is assessed for distinctiveness in a similar manner to a word mark. Other criteria for assessing the likelihood of confusion for sound marks are also clearly defined.

Elements meaning “Vietnam” (including “Việt”, “Viet”, “Việt Nam”, “Vietnam”, etc.) are unprotectable as ordinary trademarks, except in certification or collective marks or where they have acquired secondary meaning.

6. Opposition, Cancellation, and Bad Faith

Opposition is reduced to three months from publication, and third-party observations are streamlined. Notably, there is significant update on bad-faith cancellation, in which “bad faith” is now clearly defined as either of two main cases:

  • Filing a large volume of identical or confusingly similar marks to those already in use by others in Vietnam, exceeding normal business capacity and without genuine intent-to-use evidence; or
  • Filing a mark identical or confusingly similar to one recognized by relevant Vietnamese consumers or a well-known mark abroad, with the intent to exploit reputation for profit, to sell/license/transfer the registration, or to block market entry/restrict competition or engage in acts contrary to healthy commercial practices.

7. New Provisions on Trademark Use to Prevent Non-Use Cancellation

Circular 10 clarifies the standards for “genuine use” and the evidence required to defend against a non-use cancellation request. It emphasizes that use must be continuous, commercial in nature, and publicly visible in the Vietnamese market for the registered goods/services within the five-year period preceding the cancellation request. Mere token use, internal use, or use that does not reach consumers will generally not suffice.

8. Updated Rules on Certificates, Duplicates, and Recordals

The issuance and management of certificates is streamlined, with stronger emphasis on electronic certificates while maintaining the option for paper versions upon request. Clearer rules and requirements for requesting and obtaining certified duplicates or copies of certificates make the process faster and less burdensome, while the recordal system is modernized, with more flexible and detailed guidance on recording changes such as assignment, licensing, name/address updates, or other amendments to the certificate, with simplified supporting documents in many cases.

Outlook

The 2026 updates to Vietnam’s IP regime reflect a strong commitment to modernization, administrative simplification, faster timelines, and global alignment. These changes create real opportunities for more predictable and efficient trademark protection while introducing nuanced compliance requirements that demand prompter action from brand owners.

Businesses with significant Vietnamese brand exposure should review portfolios for fast-track eligibility, priority claims, and compliance with the new formality rules and shortened deadlines.

Related Professionals

Practices

Intellectual Property

Location

RELATED INSIGHTS​ 

September 14, 2026
Myanmar’s first-to-file trademark registration regime under the Trademark Law 2019—which became fully operational in April 2023—provides mark owners with enhanced legal protection compared with the country’s former system. Correspondingly, the current system imposes more rigorous statutory requirements for obtaining, maintaining, and enforcing rights in marks. In this first-to-file trademark registration system, however, evidence of use remains particularly significant, as it may establish acquired distinctiveness, support a claim that a mark is well-known, and strengthen the owner’s position in both registration and enforcement proceedings. Accordingly, it can be said that this framework is underpinned by three key concepts: distinctiveness, well-known status, and, importantly, use of the trademark. Trademark Distinctiveness Under the Trademark Law, signs that lack distinctiveness are generally ineligible for mark protection. These signs include generic terms, basic shapes, unstylized single letters or numerals, and signs that merely describe the kind, quality, quantity, intended purpose, value, geographical origin, production time, or other characteristics of the relevant goods or services. However, a mark that would otherwise be refused on distinctiveness or descriptiveness grounds may be registrable if it has acquired distinctiveness through its use prior to the filing date. To show this, the applicant must demonstrate that the mark became distinctive to relevant consumers through continuous, exclusive, and good-faith use in trade within Myanmar. The burden of proving acquired distinctiveness rests with the mark owner. Accordingly, sufficient evidence demonstrating both use of the mark and the level of consumer recognition attained should be prepared in advance. Well-Known Mark Criteria Myanmar’s Trademark Rules, which govern the substantive examination of mark registration applications, establish criteria for determining well-known marks, aligned with international standards. Where an applicant claims well-known status—whether to overcome a refusal on relative grounds or to oppose a third party’s registration—the registrar will assess the claim based on the following
Read More
September 14, 2026
On August 23, 2026, Vietnam’s National Assembly passed Law No. 11/2026/QH16, amending the country’s Customs Law with effect from March 1, 2027. The amendments represent a substantial reform of Vietnam’s customs-based intellectual property enforcement regime. The reforms come amid considerable external pressure. In its 2026 Special 301 review, the US Trade Representative (USTR) designated Vietnam a “priority foreign country,” citing widespread counterfeiting, weak border enforcement, limited ex officio customs powers, and the absence of controls over goods in transit. Vietnam’s legislative response signals a commitment to bringing its border enforcement practices into line with international expectations. For IP rights holders operating in or through Vietnam, the amended law introduces several tools that substantially strengthen enforcement options at the border. Closing the Transit Gap One of the most consequential amendments is the extension of IP-related customs enforcement to goods in transit. Previously, Vietnam’s customs regime applied IP controls only to goods being imported or exported, a gap the USTR had specifically identified as enabling infringing goods to pass through Vietnamese ports with impunity. Vietnam’s geographic position as a logistics hub for Southeast Asia means that substantial volumes of goods transit its ports and free-trade zones. Extending enforcement to cover these shipments brings Vietnam closer to the standard set by the EU’s customs enforcement regulation and addresses a longstanding concern of multinational brand owners whose goods are frequently counterfeited in the region. Strengthened Suspension and Ex Officio Powers The amended law introduces a dual-track suspension mechanism (Article 73(2)). Customs authorities will suspend clearance upon request by an IP rights holder (or authorized representative) who provides evidence of IP ownership, evidence of infringement, and a financial guarantee. Customs can now proactively suspend clearance on an ex officio basis if, during inspection and monitoring, they discover “clear grounds” to suspect that imported, exported,
Read More
September 7, 2026
Indonesia’s Constitutional Court (Mahkamah Konstitusi) has reinstated a key provision limiting pharmaceutical patent protection, signaling a renewed commitment to balancing patent rights with public access to medicines. In its ruling to Case No. 255/PUU-XXIII/2025, the court partially granted a petition for judicial review of Law No. 65 of 2024, which had amended the country’s Patent Law, and ordered the restoration of a provision that had excluded certain pharmaceutical inventions from patentability. The decision took effect immediately upon its pronouncement at the court’s plenary session on August 28, 2026. Background The petition challenged the removal of article 4(f) from Law No. 13 of 2016 concerning Patents (Patent Law), as amended by Law No. 65 of 2024. Article 4(f) had excluded from patentability certain inventions relating to new uses of known substances. The petitioners argued that removing this provision would open the door to patent protection for second medical use inventions and facilitate patent evergreening—practices that can extend exclusivity periods, delay generic market entry, and reduce public access to affordable medicines. The petitioners included several patient advocacy and public-interest organizations: the Indonesian Dialysis Patients Community Association, the Indonesian Association of Drug Abuse Victims (PKNI), the Indonesian Pulmonary Hypertension Foundation (YHPI), the Rekat Peduli Indonesia Foundation, and the Indonesian Positive Women’s Association (IPPI), along with the Indonesia for Global Justice Association and four individual petitioners. The petitioners also challenged the constitutionality of the phrase “interested party” in article 70(1) of the Patent Law, arguing that it should be construed expressly to clarify who has standing to appeal a decision to grant a patent before the Board of Patent Appeal, and to allow a broader range of parties—such as patent holders, licensees, consumer organizations, prosecutors, aggrieved third parties, and others who may suffer direct or indirect harm from the grant of a patent—to
Read More
September 2, 2026
Thailand and China have a longstanding and significant trade relationship, which increasingly extends to e-commerce and digitally enabled supply chains. While these channels create new opportunities for businesses to reach consumers across borders, their growth also brings greater exposure to intellectual property (IP) infringement across jurisdictions and online platforms. Effective cooperation between the two countries’ enforcement authorities has therefore become increasingly important. To strengthen cooperation in this area, Thailand and China signed a memorandum of understanding (MOU) on IP enforcement in Beijing on July 20, 2026, during the Thai prime minister’s official visit to China. Officially titled “Memorandum of Understanding Between the State Administration for Market Regulation of the People’s Republic of China and the Ministry of Commerce of the Kingdom of Thailand on Cooperation in the Field of Intellectual Property Enforcement,” the MOU forms part of a broader bilateral agenda covering industrial and supply chains, participation by micro, small, and medium-sized enterprises (MSMEs), cooperation associated with the ASEAN–China Free Trade Area 3.0, and progress on the registration of Thai geographical indications in China. The MOU establishes a bilateral framework for cooperation and coordination in five broad areas: Strengthening dialogue in IP enforcement; Enhancing information sharing; Facilitating the enforcement of IP rights in cases arising in the parties’ domestic markets and on online platforms, in accordance with their respective domestic laws; Promoting cooperation in IP enforcement training and human resource development; and Undertaking other cooperation activities agreed upon by both sides. The Department of Intellectual Property (DIP) will serve as the principal coordinating agency for Thailand, while the Bureau of Law Enforcement and Inspection in China’s State Administration for Market Regulation (SAMR) will serve in that role for China. The framework is particularly relevant to the growth of e-commerce, as it covers infringement in the domestic markets and on
Read More