In brief
Vietnam has issued key new implementing rules under its amended Intellectual Property (IP) Law, most notably Decree No. 100/2026/ND-CP ("Decree 100"), which amends Decree No. 65/2023/ND-CP. Decree 100 was issued on 31 March 2026 and took effect on 1 April 2026.
Decree 100 reinforces several parts of Vietnam's IP enforcement framework and gives businesses a clearer legal basis to manage, protect, and commercialize their IP. In particular, it strengthens tools for online enforcement, promotes greater use of technology and data, clarifies how conflicts between overlapping rights should be handled, and provides more practical guidance on industrial design infringement and remedies for infringing goods.
Key takeaways
Rights holders should expect a more proactive enforcement environment, especially online. Decree 100 encourages authorities to use automated monitoring and digital enforcement tools, supported by stronger coordination through centralized databases. It also gives businesses a clearer framework to track IP assets, support valuation, and put IP to work in day-to-day operations.
From a business perspective, this is not just about enforcement. It is also about making IP easier to use as a commercial asset. Companies with strong portfolios should be better positioned to support licensing, fundraising, restructuring, and disputes, backed by cleaner internal records and more reliable market data.
In more detail
1. Stronger IP management rules
- Decree 100 requires IP owners to prepare and maintain a list of IP rights that are not yet recognized as assets in the accounting books under accounting law. The list may be kept in paper or electronic form and must include key details such as the relevant right, legal status, protection term, authorship, origin, related creation and registration costs, exploitation status, revenue generated, and (where available) estimated value. The decree also clarifies that this list supports internal governance and commercial use, and does not replace any accounting-law reporting obligations.
- This is a practical, commercially important change. Many businesses hold valuable IP but do not track it in a way that supports valuation, licensing, or investor discussions. The new rule provides a clearer basis to manage IP as a business asset, strengthening readiness for transactions, audits, due diligence, and disputes through better internal records.
2. Technology-based and more proactive enforcement
- Decree 100 provides a clearer legal basis for IP authorities to build and use automated, technology-based enforcement systems, especially for online infringement. It refers to automatic monitoring of infringing conduct on the internet, the use of analytics and digital tools, requests to remove infringing content, restrictions or suspension of infringing accounts, and coordination in cases involving foreign elements.
- These systems generate data and operational recommendations only; they do not replace the legal authority or responsibility of the competent agency or official. The goal is to improve enforcement efficiency, not to automate legal decision-making.
- This matters most for consumer-facing brands, digital businesses, and companies dealing with fast-moving online infringement. Rights holders that can provide clear ownership records, strong evidence, and platform-ready complaints are likely to benefit most. The approach should also make repeat enforcement more scalable, especially where the same seller, account, or content appears across multiple channels.
3. Centralized databases to improve transparency and evidence
- Decree 100 introduces several new or expanded databases, including (i) an industrial property information database, (ii) a central database on IP enforcement, and (iii) a database on IP transaction prices. The enforcement database will include information on disputes and infringement cases that have been handled, including the rights involved, outcomes, and enforcement status. The transaction-price database will cover lawful commercial dealings such as assignments, licenses, mortgages, capital contributions, and other forms of exploitation.
- These databases could have real commercial value. Better access to enforcement outcomes should make it easier to assess risk, spot patterns of infringement, and build stronger case strategies. The transaction-price database may be even more impactful, supporting licensing discussions, valuation, damages arguments, and portfolio strategy with clearer reference points for market practice.
4. New legal basis to deal with overlapping IP rights
- The regulation addresses a common but legally complex issue: a single creation may qualify for more than one type of IP protection at the same time (for example, copyright, trademark, or design). Decree 100 sets out a clearer mechanism for situations where a later-arising or later-registered right conflicts with an earlier one. It identifies four main types of conflict: where the later right (i) significantly reduces the economic value or commercial potential of the earlier right, (ii) causes consumer confusion, (iii) prevents the earlier right holder from exercising lawful economic rights, or (iv) interferes with moral rights attached to the earlier right. Any conflict must be supported by concrete evidence.
- The key takeaway: Vietnamese law does not treat overlapping IP rights as inherently invalid, but it draws a clear line when the exercise of a later right harms the normal exploitation of an earlier one. Decree 100 takes a measured approach. It does not automatically cancel the later right; instead, it limits exercise only to the extent necessary to remove the conflict. Any non-conflicting part may remain in force, and any restriction lasts only as long as the earlier right remains protected, balancing both parties' interests while preserving legal certainty.
- In practice, this provides a clearer framework for managing overlapping IP claims and assessing enforcement risk. It discourages parties from using newly acquired rights in ways that undermine earlier legitimate rights, while still recognizing that multiple protections can coexist. For businesses, the lesson is straightforward: IP strategy in Vietnam now requires more than registration, it calls for careful clearance, deeper review of pre-existing rights, and a more thoughtful approach to enforcement and commercialization. For disputes, the focus on evidence and proportionality should lead to more predictable, commercially sensible outcomes.
5. Revised approach to industrial design infringement
- Decree 100 clarifies the test for industrial design infringement. It now expressly covers whole products, detachable and non-detachable parts, individual items within a product set, and even non-physical products. A product or part will be regarded as "not substantially different" only if it is of the same type and shares the same set of basic design features as the protected design. The decree also excludes certain elements from "basic design features", including purely functional features and features not visible during normal use.
- This should improve consistency in design enforcement and reduce arguments that do not go to the design's real visual identity. It is particularly relevant for consumer products, packaging, components, spare parts, and design-led digital sectors, where disputes can turn on technical visual comparisons.
6. Stricter rules on the disposal of infringing goods
- The decree tightens the rules on what can happen to counterfeit or infringing goods after an enforcement action. Non-commercial distribution or use is permitted only if strict conditions are met, including removal of the infringing element, no harm to people/animals/plants or the environment, no unreasonable impact on normal exploitation of the right, and priority for humanitarian, charitable, or social purposes. If these conditions are not met, destruction is the default remedy.
- This is a welcome change for rights holders. In practice, enforcement is not only about proving infringement; it is also about ensuring infringing goods do not return to circulation. The revised hierarchy should reduce that risk while still allowing socially useful outcomes where they can be properly justified.
Conclusion
Overall, Decree 100 signals a clear policy direction: stronger, more technology-enabled, and more commercially grounded IP enforcement in Vietnam. These reforms aim not only to improve enforcement outcomes, but also to make IP more transparent, manageable, and useful as a business asset. In light of these changes, rights holders should consider:
- Reviewing internal IP management systems and asset records
- Updating online enforcement strategies and evidence-collection processes
- Reassessing disputes involving overlapping IP rights
- Revisiting how the IP portfolio supports licensing, valuation, financing, and broader commercial strategy
* * * * *
Hoa Tran, Partner, Dung Pham, Special Counsel, Son Tuan Do, Senior Associate, Anh Thu Nguyen and Thi Nguyet Le, Associates, 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.