Vietnam’s IP framework has been further refined with the introduction of Law No. 131/2025/QH15 and Decree No. 100/2026/ND-CP, both effective from 1 April 2026. A key development is the introduction of a mechanism addressing conflicts arising from overlapping intellectual property (IP) rights over the same subject-matter.
It is not uncommon for a single subject-matter to attract multiple layers of protection. For example, a logo may qualify for protection both as a copyrighted work (applied art) and as a registered trademark. While such dual protection is permissible, the concurrent exercise of these rights may, in certain circumstances, give rise to conflicts.
The governing principle is set out in Article 7.4 of Law No. 131/2025/QH15:
“Where the same subject matter is subject to multiple intellectual property rights arising or established in accordance with Article 6 of this Law, any intellectual property right arising later or established later in respect of such subject matter shall be required to cease its exercise where the exercise of such later-arising or later-established intellectual property right conflicts with the normal use of the intellectual property right that has arisen earlier or been established earlier. The cessation of the exercise of intellectual property rights under this Clause shall be decided by the Court. The Government shall provide detailed regulations for this Clause.”
Detailed implementing guidance is provided under Article 9g of Decree No. 100/2026/ND-CP:
“Article 9g. Cessation of exercise of intellectual property rights
- A subject matter having multiple intellectual property rights established or arising as prescribed in Article 6 of the Law on Intellectual Property is a case where a subject matter, as a result of creative activity, simultaneously satisfies conditions for protection under multiple types of intellectual property rights.
- The exercise of intellectual property rights arising later or established later (hereinafter referred to as “subsequent intellectual property rights”) with respect to the subject matter prescribed in Clause 1 of this Article shall be deemed to conflict with the normal utilization of intellectual property rights of another party arising earlier or established earlier (hereinafter referred to as “prior intellectual property rights”) in the following cases:
- a) The exercise of subsequent intellectual property rights significantly reduces the economic value or commercial utilization capacity of prior intellectual property rights;
- b) The exercise of subsequent intellectual property rights causes confusion to consumers regarding the origin or quality of goods or services related to prior intellectual property rights;
- c) The exercise of subsequent intellectual property rights prevents or restricts holders of prior intellectual property rights from exercising their legal property rights;
- d) The exercise of subsequent intellectual property rights affects moral rights of holders of prior intellectual property rights (where prior intellectual property rights include moral rights).
- The conflict between the exercise of subsequent intellectual property rights and the normal utilization of prior intellectual property rights prescribed in Clause 2 of this Article must be proven by specific evidence.
- In cases of conflicts between the exercise of subsequent intellectual property rights and the exercise of prior intellectual property rights as prescribed in Clause 2 of this Article, handling shall be based on the following principles:
- a) Subsequent intellectual property rights shall only be subject to cessation of exercise to the extent necessary to eliminate the conflict, without affecting non-conflicting parts (if any);
- b) Cessation of the exercise of subsequent intellectual property rights shall not terminate the validity of the protection title (if any), but only restrict the exercise of rights within the conflicting scope;
- c) Cessation of the exercise of intellectual property rights under this Article shall only apply within the protection term of the prior intellectual property rights.
- The authority to decide the cessation of the exercise of rights and procedures for requesting cessation of the exercise of intellectual property rights prescribed in this Article shall comply with the law on procedures.
- The initiation of procedures requesting the Court to compel cessation of intellectual property rights, as prescribed in Clause 4 Article 7 of the Law on Intellectual Property, shall also be considered a measure to protect intellectual property rights.”.
Taken together, these provisions aim to safeguard the stability of existing legal relationships, place priority rights at the center, and introduce a flexible rights-limitation mechanism. This approach suggests a departure from the traditional notion of absolute exclusivity of IP rights, as the exercise of rights is no longer unconditional but may be subject to judicial limitation on a case-by-case basis.
In practical terms, this mechanism provides courts with a structured basis to reconcile overlapping rights while preserving legal certainty. It also signals that rights holders can no longer rely solely on formal exclusivity, but should proactively reassess their protection and enforcement strategies in anticipation of potential conflicts.
