In brief
Vietnam has kicked off 2026 with a noticeable surge in intellectual property (IP) enforcement. Two major developments are driving this shift:
- The rollout of the Amended IP Law 2025
- Directive No. 02/CT-TTg ("Directive") on strengthening IP enforcement, issued by Prime Minister Pham Minh Chinh on 30 January 2026
Together, these measures send a clear message: Vietnam is stepping up its fight against IP infringement, with particular focus on the digital space.
The new framework introduces stronger remedies, higher penalties, broader administrative and criminal exposure, and closer coordination among central and local authorities. Companies operating in Vietnam, especially in the technology, consumer goods, e-commerce and creative industries, should take this moment to reassess both compliance and enforcement strategies.
Key takeaways
- Vietnam is moving beyond law reform toward active, coordinated and technology-driven IP enforcement.
- Authorities are prioritizing administrative, civil and criminal actions, with special attention to online piracy and counterfeiting.
- The Ministry of Science and Technology (MOST) is leading reforms through regulatory updates, a national enforcement database, and AI- and blockchain-enabled monitoring tools.
- The Ministry of Culture, Sports and Tourism (MCST) is ramping up inspections and targeting digital piracy.
- The Ministry of Public Security (MPS) will play a bigger role by pushing criminal investigations, expanding IP-related offenses and increasing penalties.
- The Ministry of Industry and Trade (MOIT) will intensify market surveillance, focusing on major cities and key distribution channels.
- Local enforcement authorities are now directly accountable for detecting, addressing and preventing IP infringements within their jurisdictions.
In more detail
The Directive marks a decisive shift from policymaking to hands-on enforcement. It puts the Amended IP Law 2025 into action by assigning responsibilities, setting timelines and identifying enforcement priorities across the country.
1. Purpose and policy direction
The Directive reinforces the government's commitment to:
- Improving enforcement efficiency across administrative, civil and criminal channels
- Tackling long-standing challenges such as online piracy, counterfeiting and unfair competition
- Holding ministries and local authorities accountable for real enforcement outcomes
2. Key assignments to central authorities
The MOST: As the lead agency for IP enforcement reform, the MOST is tasked with:
- Regulatory upgrades: drafting amendments to strengthen administrative sanctions and streamline procedures
- National IP Enforcement Database: building a centralized, interagency database with the MPS by 2026 to improve monitoring, information sharing and coordinated enforcement
- Technology-driven enforcement: promoting advanced tools, such as AI-based monitoring and blockchain-enabled traceability, to detect and investigate IP infringements more effectively
The MCST: This ministry will:
- Step up inspections and enforcement against copyright and related-rights infringements
- Focus on unauthorized copying, digital piracy and online distribution of protected content
This signals closer scrutiny of digital platforms and online content channels.
The MPS: The Directive significantly strengthens the role of criminal enforcement. The MPS is instructed to:
- Intensify investigations, speed up prosecutions and work more closely with judicial authorities on serious IP cases
- Propose amendments to expand administrative sanctions for trademark and geographical indication counterfeiting (targeted for 2026)
- Recommend revisions to the Criminal Code to:
- Broaden offenses covering industrial property, copyright and related rights
- Increase criminal penalties to strengthen deterrence
These moves clearly point to lower thresholds for criminal action and greater exposure to liability for IP violations.
The MOIT: This ministry is directed to mobilize market surveillance forces to:
- Run high-intensity enforcement campaigns against counterfeit and infringing goods
- Concentrate on major cities, wholesale markets and key distribution networks
Businesses should expect more inspections, more raids and more coordinated crackdowns.
3. A stronger role for local enforcement authorities
For the first time, the Directive explicitly places direct responsibility on provincial and local authorities for IP violations occurring within their territories. They must:
- Actively detect, investigate and resolve infringements
- Take responsibility where enforcement efforts fall short
This decentralized approach is designed to close long-standing enforcement gaps and deliver more consistent IP protection nationwide.
Conclusion
The Directive signals that Vietnam is entering a new phase of IP enforcement one that is more assertive, more technology-enabled and more tightly coordinated across all levels of government. Key themes include:
- Stronger administrative and criminal action
- Greater use of technology in enforcement
- Closer coordination among enforcement bodies
- Increased pressure at both central and local levels
Businesses operating in or engaging with Vietnam should prepare for more frequent inspections, closer scrutiny and faster escalation of serious infringement cases. At the same time, rights holders may find enforcement pathways becoming more efficient, predictable and effective, particularly for online and large-scale violations.
We will continue to track implementing regulations and enforcement trends under the Directive. Meanwhile, we are happy to assist with risk assessments, compliance planning and enforcement strategies.
Hoa Tran, Partner, Dung Pham, Special Counsel, and Alison Nguyen, Associate, have co-authored this legal update.
© 2026 BMVN International LLC. All rights reserved. BMVN International LLC is in strategic alliance with Baker & McKenzie (Vietnam) Ltd., a member firm of Baker & McKenzie International, a global law firm with member law firms around the world. In accordance with the common terminology used in professional service organizations, reference to a “partner” means a person who is a partner, or equivalent, in such a law firm. Similarly, reference to an “office” means an office of any such law firm. This may qualify as “Attorney Advertising” requiring notice in some jurisdictions. Prior results do not guarantee a similar outcome.