On 10 December 2025, the National Assembly passed the amended Law on Intellectual Property (“IP Law”), which will take effect on 1 April 2026. Below is a discussion of several significant aspects of the amended law.
I. PROMOTION OF COMMERCIALISATION OF IP RIGHTS
Under the new Article 8a of the IP Law, IP rights constitute assets capable of valuation, transfer, pledge as collateral, and exploitation as economic resources. The IP Law stipulates that owners of IP rights are entitled to use such rights to conduct civil, commercial, investment, and other activities in accordance with applicable laws. The State encourages the exploitation of IP rights for capital contribution and for use as collateral for loans.
These general provisions will be further specified in sub-law documents (decrees and circulars). It is expected that, in the future, the commercialization of IP rights will be further promoted in Vietnam.
II. NEW ISSUES
- Artificial Intelligence (AI)
This is the first time that the IP Law has addressed issues relating to AI.
In line with Article 96.1(d) of the amended IP law, inventors of inventions and industrial designs must be human beings.
Article 7.5 provides:
“5. Organizations and individuals may use texts and data relating to objects of intellectual property rights that have been lawfully published and are accessible to the public for the purposes of scientific research, experimentation, and training artificial intelligence systems, provided that such use does not unreasonably prejudice the rights and legitimate interests of authors and intellectual property rights holders as prescribed by this Law.”
In essence, this provision permits organizations and individuals to “exploit” and “copy” data relating to published IP rights for the purpose of training AI systems. However, unlike human access to information merely for reading and comprehension, AI training is inherently an act of “copying” as it involves creating physical copies of the accessed data and storing them for subsequent analysis and synthesis. Accordingly, providing data to AI systems concerning “works” such as logos, industrial designs, images, patent descriptions, etc., without the consent of the rights holders and without payment of creative remuneration constitutes copyright infringement under the law. Specifically, it infringes the reproduction right – an exclusive and fundamental right of authors and copyright owners. These rights holders would be unable to protect their legitimate interests because they cannot object to others’ access to and exploitation of data for the purpose of AI training.
Therefore, the condition of “not unreasonably prejudicing the rights and legitimate interests of authors” is impracticable and difficult to determine in practice. It is impossible to claim “no prejudice” when an author’s work becomes free “raw material” and a creative foundation for others, while the use of AI generates commercial benefits.
Moreover, it remains unclear whether this condition applies to the original data being accessed or to the output generated by AI. The current formulation, which sets out only a general condition, makes it very difficult to establish criteria and assess damages. Allowing access to data for the purpose of training AI systems subject to such vague constraints may easily give rise to the following risks:
– AI models trained on original works may generate content that competes directly in the market
– Income from the sale or exploitation of the original works by authors or rights holders may be significantly reduced or replaced
– Authors’ creative identities may be diluted or erased when AI reproduces or imitates their styles; and
– Consumers may be confused and find it difficult to distinguish between authentic works and derivative content generated by AI.
Article 6 provides that the Government shall issue regulations on the arising and acquisition of IP rights created with the use of AI systems.
Accordingly, decrees and circulars to be issued following the promulgation of the amended IP Law are expected to provide more detailed provisions relating to AI.
- Partial designs and designs not embodied in tangible products
The new definition of an industrial design is provided in Article 4.13:
“Industrial design is the external appearance of the whole or a part of a product in the physical or non-physical form, and is expressed in shapes, lines, colors, or any combination thereof and is visible during the exploitation of the utility of the product.”
Accordingly, partial designs are now patentable in Vietnam. In addition, designs not embodied in tangible products, such as graphic images, are also eligible for protection.
While these matters have been protected in many jurisdictions, their protection in Vietnam has been long anticipated.
- Power of attorney
Instead of listing specific procedures like renewal that require authorization as in the former IP Law, the amended IP Law now provides in general terms that all procedures related to industrial property rights may be carried out through authorization. This approach is intended to eliminate any misunderstanding that there may be industrial property procedures that are not permitted to be performed under authorization.
In addition, for a power of attorney without a specified time limit, the indefinite term (under the current law) has been amended to a term determined in accordance with the Civil Code (under the amended law), in such cases, the term of the power of attorney is one year from the date of execution of the power of attorney.
- Grounds for invalidation
Under the current law, violation of the first to file principle (double patenting) constitutes one of the grounds for invalidation of an invention patent. Under the amended law, this ground is also applicable to designs and trademarks.
III. HANDLING OF IP MATTERS ACCELERATED
Many statutory time limits for processing IP applications have been shortened.
– The time limit for substantive examination has been reduced to 12 months for inventions (from 18 months) and 5 months for designs and trademarks (from 7 months and 9 months, respectively)
– Design and trademark applications are published within 1 month (from 2 months) from the date on which the application passes formalities examination.
– Decisions on the grant, termination, invalidation, or amendment of patents or trademark registrations are published within 30 days (from 60 days), and
– The time limit for filing oppositions has been shortened to 6 months for inventions (from 9 months) and 3 months for designs and trademarks (from 4 months and 5 months, respectively).
In addition, in cases prescribed by decrees that will be issued, applicants may request accelerated examination of invention and trademark applications. In such cases, the time limit for substantive examination is reduced to 3 months, instead of 12 months and 5 months, respectively.
The deadline of 42 months from the priority date for lodging a request for substantive examination of an invention application has been shortened to 36 months.
IV. SPECIFIC INVENTION AMENDMENTS – Security control
Under Article 89a.1 of the current law, for an invention that belongs to technical fields that affect national security or national defense, is created in Vietnam and the applicant thereof (the owner as well as the person having the right to file the patent application) is an individual who is a Vietnamese citizen and has permanent residency in Vietnam or is a Vietnamese organization (like a Vietnamese company), it is allowed to file applications abroad only if a Vietnamese patent application for the invention has been filed for security control.
Under the amended law, an additional condition has been introduced, namely that such invention must also fall within the list of state secrets. Furthermore, the requirement “only if a Vietnamese patent application for the invention has been filed for security control” has been replaced by the requirement “after approval by the Ministry of National Defense or the Ministry of Public Security“.
These provisions are expected to be further clarified in sub-law documents (decrees and circulars) to be issued for their implementation.
V. SPECIFIC DESIGN AMENDMENTS – Grace period
The scope of the grace period has been broadened as well as more cases are now eligible. For example, under the current law, one of the qualifying conditions is that the design “is published in the form of a scientific report“, whereas under the amended law, the condition is simply that the design “is publicly disclosed“.
VI. SPECIFIC TRADEMARK AMENDMENTS
Unlike the previous IP law, the amended one clearly provides that trademark applications are publicly disclosed immediately after being accepted for filing, while the procedures for issuing notices of refusal or acceptance of the formality of a trademark application have been removed. Accordingly, if a trademark application meets requirements of formality, it will be published and proceed to substantive examination; if it is not accepted for formality, it will be refused protection. Notably, an application refused due to its formality is deemed not to have been filed, but it may still serve as a basis for claiming priority rights.
It can be said that the amendments and supplements to Articles 109 and 110 are progressive in nature, aiming to streamline administrative procedures and shorten the examination timeline while still safeguarding the legitimate interests of trademark applicants.
In addition, the amended IP Law tightens the protection mechanism for the national name “Viet Nam” by revising Article 74.2(d) and introducing the new Article 74.2(d1). Specifically, the name “Viet Nam” is separated from the group of signs indicating ordinary geographical origin (common local place names) and is now subject to the requirement of obtaining permission from a competent state authority for registration. The purpose of this new provision is to prevent the appropriation of the national geographical name as a private trademark, in contrast to ordinary geographical names, which may be granted protection based on evidence of use and widespread recognition.
VII. SPECIFIC COPYRIGHT AMENDMENTS
The amended IP Law adds new subject matters excluded from the scope of copyright protection under Article 15.4, including “ideas, slogans, and titles of works considered independently” This change aims to more clearly exclude subject matters that, although they may be the result of human creativity, do not meet the criteria to be regarded as works, thereby limiting misunderstandings and the abuse of copyright claims, which have tended to increase in practice with respect to these subject matters.
In addition, the new law revises the definition of “producers of sound recordings and video recordings” under Article 16 by providing that such producers are not only those who “first fix sounds or images” but also those who “initiate and bear responsibility” for the sound and video recordings. This amendment emphasizes the investment role and legal responsibility of these related rights holders, rather than viewing them merely as parties whose related rights arise purely from technical activities.
Furthermore, in light of the increasingly diverse development of computer programs and the complexity that easily gives rise to disputes concerning this subject matter, the amended IP Law introduces provisions allowing agreements between authors and copyright owners for the upgrading and modification of computer programs, as well as granting lawful users the right to make one backup copy of the copyrighted computer programs.
VIII. SPECIFIC ENFORCEMENT AMENDMENTS
- Legal liability of third-parties regarding IP rights
In addition to intermediary service providers, the new IP Law has added “digital platform owners/operators” as entities that are required to implement measures to protect IP rights in cyberspace. This responsibility involves not only compliance with IP regulations but also adherence to laws and regulations on e-commerce, cybersecurity, and other relevant legal provisions.
This is a timely addition that closely follows societal developments. Alongside the diverse and rapid growth of digital platforms, IP infringements in cyberspace have also expanded to these platforms, making it necessary to involve “digital platform owners/operators” in coordinating efforts to implement technical measures and to cooperate with enforcement authorities and IP rights holders in enforcing measures to protect IP rights.
- Competent administrative authorities who handle IP infringement
To align with the consolidation and streamlining of the administrative offices, the amended IP Law no longer enumerates the authorities empowered to impose administrative sanctions for acts infringing IP rights. Instead, Article 200 expressly refers to the courts and “competent persons authorized to impose administrative sanctions” to denote the authorities with jurisdiction to administratively handle acts of intellectual property infringement.
- Civil remedies against IP infringement
The new law introduces provisions requiring the destruction of, or the compulsory distribution or use for non-commercial purposes of, counterfeit goods, pirated goods, and the raw materials and means used in the production of such counterfeit goods. This regulation reflects a firm, clear yet flexible approach by enforcement authorities in dealing with counterfeit goods, while also preventing misunderstandings that these measures apply only to goods infringing IP rights.
In addition, the new law provides further remedial measures for acts of IP infringement in cyberspace. These include provisions mandating the removal, concealment, or disabling of access to information, content, accounts, websites, applications, or internet address identifiers related to IP infringement. This can be regarded as a progressive regulation that responds to the need to address IP infringements in the digital technology era.
- Grounds for determining amount of damages for loss caused by an IPR infringement
The new IP law has increased the level of compensation for material damages to be determined by the court (where damages cannot be established based on the statutory grounds) from VND 500 million to VND 1 billion. This provision clearly demonstrates the law’s stringent sanctions against entities committing acts of intellectual property infringement.
Meanwhile, with respect to moral damages, if the plaintiff proves such damages, the new IP law allows the court to determine compensation within a range of 10 to 100 times the plaintiff’s salary, depending on the severity of the harm. Compared with the previous law, the unit of calculation has thus shifted from a fixed monetary amount to a “salary-based” standard when determining compensation for moral damages.
- Provisional urgent measures
Similar to the additional sanctions applicable in the administrative and civil handling of IP infringements, the amended IP Law also introduces provisional emergency measures for addressing acts of IP infringement in cyberspace. Accordingly, such provisional emergency measures may include the “concealment or temporary disabling of access to information, content, accounts, websites, applications, or internet address identifiers related to acts of intellectual property infringement”.
- Principle for resolving conflicts between IP rights
The 2025 IP Law introduces a principle for resolving conflicts between IP rights under Article 7.4, which provides that where a single subject matter is protected by multiple IP rights, the court may order the termination of the later-arising right if such right obstructs the exploitation of an earlier-established right. The purpose of this provision is to safeguard the stability of existing legal relationships, place priority rights at the center, apply a flexible rights-limitation mechanism (i.e., termination of the exercise of rights) to resolve conflicts, and assign a key role to the court in applying this principle on a case-by-case basis.
By Nguyen Duc Thang and Nguyen Trong Tu
