At the same time, attention has increasingly shifted from what the law provides to how it functions in practice. This distinction came into sharper focus on April 30, 2026, when the US Trade Representative (USTR) designated Viet Nam a “Priority Foreign Country” in its annual Special 301 Report - a classification associated with serious concerns over IP enforcement outcomes. The designation does not question Viet Nam’s legislative intent but places its recent reforms squarely in a more results oriented context.

Against this backdrop, Viet Nam’s 2025–2026 IP reforms are best understood not as incremental statutory updates, but as part of a broader transition - from law reform to enforcement performance, and from administrative compliance to economic impact.

Key legislative and regulatory reforms

The foundation for this transition lies in the Amended Intellectual Property Law (Law No. 131/2025/QH15), effective April 1, 2026. Supported by implementing regulations, including Decree 341/2025/ND CP, Decree 100/2026/ND CP, and Decree 134/2026/ND CP, the amended framework reflects a deliberate move towards a more assertive, tools driven enforcement model.

Among the most significant changes is the expansion and clarification of civil remedies under Articles 202 to 205 of the IP Law. Courts are now expressly empowered to order the removal of, or disable access to, infringing online content; mandate the destruction of counterfeit or pirated goods as a standalone remedy; destroy or repurpose tools and machinery used primarily for infringement; and impose enhanced statutory damages where actual losses are difficult to prove.

These measures are particularly significant in the digital context, where enforcement has traditionally lagged behind the pace of online infringement. Together, they signal that Viet Nam’s enforcement framework is no longer confined to physical markets or reactive administrative action.

Border enforcement has also been strengthened. Circular No. 06/2026/TT BTC requires Viet Nam Customs to implement an electronic IP recordation system, mandates rapid notification to importers when suspicious goods are identified, and provides explicit authority to inspect small consignments, seize and destroy infringing goods, and take ex officio action at the regional level.

Enforcement with economic impact in mind

What distinguishes the new regime is not simply the range of remedies available, but the logic behind them. Rather than focusing narrowly on the act of infringement, the amended framework emphasises economic harm, including lost revenue, illegal profits, and market distortion.

This shift matters for investors in three key respects. First, online infringement is now more directly addressable. Expanded authority to remove or block access to infringing content aligns enforcement with the realities of e commerce and live streaming sales, which are increasingly central to Viet Nam’s consumer economy.

Second, remedies targeting counterfeit goods and production tools reflect recognition that effective enforcement must disrupt infringing business models, not merely penalise isolated violations. For brand owners and foreign manufacturers, this lowers the risk of persistent, low cost infringement that erodes market share over time.

Third, enhanced statutory damages and economic impact based penalties strengthen deterrence - a factor investors closely monitor when assessing whether enforcement actions meaningfully change market behaviour.

For rights holders, enforcement is no longer solely about establishing formal legal rights, but about demonstrating real world harm and commercial impact.

Early observations

From an early implementation perspective, customs enforcement stands out as particularly relevant to investors. Clearer inspection authority, electronic IP recordation, and express powers to seize and destroy infringing goods, including small consignments, have made border measures more practical and accessible.

For manufacturers and brand owners, this has two immediate implications. First, enforcement can occur earlier in the supply chain, reducing downstream losses. Second, customs enforcement favours investors who treat IP as an operational asset by maintaining aligned registrations, clear product descriptions, and enforcement ready documentation.

Online enforcement is also beginning to move more quickly where rights holders present strong and well organised evidence. The system increasingly rewards preparation and portfolio discipline, characteristics strongly associated with sophisticated foreign investors.

Better coordination

Another meaningful change, long desired by IP stakeholders, is the better coordination on IP enforcement activities between competent and responsible agencies. The Ministry of Science and Technology (MOST) is tapped to lead efforts, with increased participation from the Ministry of Public Security (MPS) for criminal investigations and the Ministry of Culture, Sports and Tourism (MCST) regarding digital copyright piracy.

The growing use of centralised databases and technology enabled monitoring tools further supports this coordination. At the same time, greater responsibility has been placed on local enforcement authorities, representing a shift away from a highly centralised enforcement model toward one that is more responsive at the provincial level.

Key takeaways for rights holders

One of the most investor significant developments is that IP rights holders now have clearer legal standing to seek removal of infringing online content directly from platforms, rather than relying solely on government agencies to act. This improves both the speed and commercial relevance of enforcement.

As international scrutiny intensifies, rights holders who treat IP as a strategic business asset, rather than a passive legal formality, are best positioned to benefit from the stronger legal toolkit now available.

Beyond reform, toward credibility

Taken together, these developments show that Viet Nam is moving beyond formal law reform toward a more active, coordinated, and technology driven IP enforcement model. In doing so, it is aligning more closely with leading ASEAN economies that view IP as foundational to investment, innovation, and economic growth.

The USTR’s “Priority Foreign Country” designation underscores a central reality for investors: IP regimes are judged by enforcement outcomes, not legislative intent. Seen in this context, the designation reflects rising expectations as Viet Nam advances into higher value, innovation driven sectors, rather than a rejection of its reform trajectory.

With the legal framework in place, the next phase - and the one of greatest significance to investors - will be defined by the consistency and commercial impact of enforcement in practice.