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

May 23, 2016

Vietnam: Protecting Trade Secrets

Subscribe to Updates
Managing Intellectual Property

Trade secrets have been protected under Vietnam’s intellectual property regulations and other laws for many years. However, questions as to the actual effectiveness of such legal protection measures continue to vex lawyers and other experts. These questions stem from the laws themselves, as well as how the regulations may be applied in actual legal proceedings.

Trade Secret Protection in the Law

The current legal regulations in Vietnam governing or touching upon the issue of trade secret protection are found scattered throughout a wide range of legislation, such as the 2005 Law on Intellectual Property (Article 4.23), the 2012 Labor Code (Articles 19.1 and 23.2) and the 2004 Law on Competition (Articles 3.10, 39.2, and 41). While this may seem to be comprehensive coverage to an outside observer, some fundamental shortcomings remain within the legal system, as there are no regulations governing the relationship  between these laws.

For example, how will the law balance the right of an employee to freely sign and terminate labor contracts and to work for any employer and at any place not prohibited by law, an important principle stipulated in Article 10.1 of the Labor Code, against non-compete clauses previously agreed to between the employee and the employer, that say that the employee cannot work for a competitor or another company in the same field in Vietnam for a given period of time after concluding the labor contract? In this situation, if the agreement of the two parties becomes “law” and is binding upon the employee, will this agreement implicitly be valid or must it be accompanied by some condition such as only being valid when the employee is given some material benefit from the employer in exchange, commensurate to the amount of time and the geographical region in respect of which they commit not to work for competitors?

Looking at the history of the law in Vietnam, when the Competition Law was originally drafted, many legal experts mentioned the need for some specific provisions governing non-compete agreements in labor relationships, as well as in other legal relationships such as franchising, technology transfer, and licensing, but the lawmakers opted to remain silent on this issue. Thus, the potential legal risks have not yet had a satisfactory solution.

In addition to non-compete clauses in labor contracts, another measure provided in the law (Article 119.1(d) of the Labor Code) that is commonly used to protect trade secrets is specifying the responsibility and obligation of trade secret confidentiality in the internal labor rules of a company. Typically, these regulations will define who can access the information, which documents are considered trade secrets and how they are to be kept and managed, and the sanctions for breaches, the most serious of which is termination. The fact that the internal labor rules must be registered with labor authorities may strengthen the probability of enforcement. However, it will be very interesting to see how the effectiveness of these measures plays out.

Trade Secret Protection in Practice

Unlike IP disputes in other areas such as patent and trademark, disputes related to trade secrets have thus far been very uncommon in Vietnam. To date, we have only seen two cases related to trade secrets that have been heard by the courts, one in 2005 in the People’s Court of Ho Chi Minh City (Case No. 20/LD-ST dated March 17, 2005) and one in 2010 in the Duc Hoa District Court of Long An Province (Case No. 09/2010/LD-ST dated December 10, 2010).

The first case was in relation to an American company’s firing of an employee for breaching the internal labor rules on confidentiality when the employee sent an email to her sister disclosing information about the employer’s products. The court ruled in the employer’s favor, that the termination was justified, after recognizing the legal validity of the internal labor rules on confidentiality that the employer had issued and registered with the labor authorities.

The second case concerned a Vietnamese company, where an employee had signed a non-compete clause in the form of agreeing not to work for any competitor for a period of one year after ending the labor relationship with the employer. However, the unique aspect of this situation was that the employer had retained the right to regularly update the list of companies that it considered to be its “competitors,” which employees could not go to work for, but the employees did not get any material benefits in return for complying with this clause. Despite this, the court still recognized the legality of this non-competition agreement when it held that this was a purely civil agreement and thus was viewed as the will of both parties.

From the two cases above it can be seen that the courts of Vietnam have had a tendency to uphold measures protecting trade secrets that the parties have agreed to, but there are still some legal risks. In the Labor Code of 2012, the lawmakers stipulated that if there is an agreement on protection of trade secrets, then in addition to agreeing on penalties to compensate for breaches, the confidentiality agreement must take into account the benefits of the employee (Article 23.2 of the Labor Code). This may create room for courts to tend to rule in favor of the employee in more cases.

Download Full Article
Related Professionals

Practices

Dispute Resolution and Litigation

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 4, 2026
Thailand’s cabinet has approved two draft amendments aimed at improving labor-related judicial proceedings. The proposed amendments to the Act on the Establishment of Labor Courts and Labor Case Procedure B.E. 2522 (1979) and the Act on Procedures for Human Trafficking Cases B.E. 2559 (2016) are intended to make the process more efficient, appropriate, and fair. Key elements of these proposed amendments are outlined below. Expansion of Labor Court Jurisdiction Under the current framework, labor courts generally hear labor disputes, while criminal offenses under labor laws are handled separately. Matters involving both labor and criminal issues may therefore require the parties to pursue proceedings before different courts. To address this, the proposed amendments would expand the jurisdiction of labor courts to cover certain criminal offenses under labor laws. The government states that the change is intended to allow related issues to be heard by judges with expertise in labor law and to reduce the need for parallel proceedings. The proposed amendments also set out the following rules for cases involving multiple offenses. Where a single act gives rise to multiple offenses and at least one of those offenses falls within the jurisdiction of the labor court, the labor court may hear the related offenses as part of the same case. Where multiple connected acts give rise to different offenses, the labor court may hear the matters together or transfer part of the case to the appropriate court, taking into account convenience and the interests of justice. Criminal Offenses Covered The proposed amendments would extend labor court jurisdiction to criminal offenses under 11 labor-related laws, including laws concerning: Home workers protection Labor protection Labor protection in fisheries work Employment and job-seeker protection Management of foreign workers Social security Occupational safety, health, and working environment Compensation Maritime labor State enterprise labor relations
Read More