Decree 186 Transforms Vietnam’s Administrative IP Enforcement Framework

When Decree No. 186/2026/ND-CP (Decree 186) takes effect on July 15, 2026, it will introduce the most significant reform of Vietnam’s administrative IP enforcement framework since Decree 99/2013/ND-CP was issued in 2013. These changes are expected to make administrative enforcement faster, more accessible, and better suited to the realities of modern IP disputes.

Below are the principal reforms and their practical implications for rights holders and enforcement practitioners.

The End of Notarization and Consular Legalization

Among the most welcome procedural changes is the abolition of the notarization and consular legalization requirement for powers of attorney (POA) submitted in administrative enforcement proceedings. Under the previous regime, foreign rights holders were generally required to execute a POA, then have it notarized and consular legalized (if seeking customs recordal). In practice, this process frequently delayed enforcement by four to eight weeks, often long enough for infringing goods to disappear before authorities could intervene.

Decree 186 removes this bottleneck, now requiring only an original or certified copy of the POA. If the document is in a foreign language, a Vietnamese translation is sufficient, provided it is certified by a competent authority or confirmed by the authorized Vietnamese IP representative. Consular legalization and notarization are no longer required.

For rights holders, the practical impact is substantial. Administrative enforcement files that previously took weeks to prepare can now be completed in a matter of days, allowing much faster responses in time-sensitive matters such as warehouse raids, border interventions, and trade-fair enforcement.

The decree also introduces a useful administrative simplification. Where an original POA has already been submitted to the same enforcement authority and remains valid, applicants may rely on a copy of that earlier submission by identifying the previous case file. This eliminates unnecessary duplication for rights holders pursuing multiple enforcement actions before the same authority.

Extension of MSA’s Enforcement Jurisdiction to Service Businesses

For years, owners of service marks in Vietnam faced a peculiar enforcement gap. A restaurant chain would discover a competitor brazenly copying its branding on a shopfront two blocks away. The natural enforcement channel would be the Market Surveillance Agency (MSA), the most geographically dispersed enforcement body with offices in every district. Yet when the brand owner’s counsel filed a complaint, the authorities would point out that, according to statute, their authority covered only violations in the “production, trading, transportation, and storage of goods.” Services were not within their mandate.

Decree 186 resolves this controversy with unmistakable clarity. The decree expressly confirms the MSA’s jurisdiction over violations arising in commercial service business activities as well. For practitioners, the implication is straightforward. Service mark owners now have clear access to Vietnam’s most geographically extensive administrative enforcement body, making the MSA a considerably more attractive option for many service-related infringement cases.

Institutional Restructuring: The IP Office Takes Control

Decree 186 also reflects Vietnam’s broader institutional restructuring. Following the dissolution of the Science and Technology Inspectorate, the Intellectual Property Office of Vietnam (IP Office) has been given direct authority to impose administrative penalties under Chapter II of the decree.

This change represents far more than a simple administrative transfer. The IP Office is the agency responsible for examining and granting IP rights, and its officials possess considerable technical expertise in patents, trademarks, and industrial designs. Consolidating enforcement powers within the same institution may promote greater technical consistency when assessing infringement.

The revised decree also recalibrates the powers of other enforcement authorities. The MSAs, the Departments of Science and Technology, customs, the police (including cybersecurity police units), and People’s Committees at various levels all retain administrative enforcement powers with updated penalty thresholds reflecting the new institutional framework.

New Tools for Tackling Online Infringement

Another important innovation is the introduction of domain name access blocking as an administrative remedy. Previously, enforcement authorities could order the return, revocation, or transfer of domain names, but these measures were largely effective only against .vn domain names administered within Vietnam. International domain names used to promote counterfeit goods often remained beyond the practical reach of administrative enforcement.

Under Decree 186, the authorities may require hosting providers to implement technical measures to block access to infringing domain names within Vietnam. The decree prescribes specific timelines for implementing blocking orders, reporting compliance, and restoring access where a blocking decision is later lifted.

Although determined infringers can migrate to new domains, access blocking provides enforcement authorities with an important interim tool to disrupt infringing online operations while other enforcement measures continue. Combined with Vietnam’s evolving e-commerce regulatory framework, it represents a meaningful expansion of the country’s online IP enforcement toolkit.

Additional Noteworthy Changes

Decree 186 also broadens protection relating to business names. The previous decree referred only to enterprise names, whereas the new provisions expressly cover both enterprise names and business household names. Given the significant number of businesses operating as household businesses in Vietnam, this amendment closes an important enforcement gap.

The decree also introduces a counterbalancing safeguard for rights holders initiating administrative enforcement. Where goods are seized following an enforcement request but the resulting penalty decision is subsequently amended or revoked, the complainant must compensate the affected party in accordance with its prior undertaking. The provision reinforces the importance of ensuring that enforcement requests are supported by adequate evidence before administrative measures are sought.

Looking Ahead

Decree 186 represents a significant step forward in the evolution of Vietnam’s administrative IP enforcement regime. The decree addresses many of the practical challenges that have affected administrative enforcement over the past decade.

Implementation will inevitably determine the ultimate success of these reforms, and consistency across local enforcement authorities will remain an important consideration. Nevertheless, the amendments provide rights holders with a more efficient and versatile administrative enforcement framework.

The content of this article is intended to provide a general guide to the subject matter. Specialist advice should be sought about your specific circumstances.