Hanoi (VNA) - As Vietnam advances judicial reform and deepens international integration, establishing specialised judicial mechanisms for intellectual property (IP) disputes and violations has become increasingly necessary. However, rapid technological development and the proliferation of new forms of IP infringement are creating significant challenges for adjudication.
Specialised IP courts improve enforcement effectiveness
Since July 1, 2025, specialised intellectual property courts have officially operated within the Regional People’s Court No. 2 of Hanoi and the Regional People’s Court No. 1 of Ho Chi Minh City. According to Chief Judge Hoang Ngoc Thanh of the Regional People’s Court No. 2 of Hanoi, the move reflects the judiciary’s commitment to judicial reforms, improving the quality of adjudication in line with directions from the Supreme People’s Court, while responding to the requirements of the digital economy and Vietnam’s international economic integration commitments.
Thanh said the specialised model helps shorten case-processing time, improve the quality of judgments, enhance consistency and predictability in the application of law, and better protect the legitimate creative and property rights of organisations and individuals. It also strengthens the confidence of domestic and foreign businesses and investors in Vietnam’s IP protection system.
Since its establishment, Hanoi's specialised court has accepted 27 civil and commercial cases involving intellectual property rights, primarily concerning copyright and related rights. Five cases have been resolved, while the remainders are undergoing legal proceedings.
Despite these developments, the number of criminal prosecutions and civil disputes currently brought before the courts still falls far short of the actual scale of IP violations occurring in Vietnam. During a nationwide enforcement campaign launched under the Prime Minister’s Official dispatch No. 38, market surveillance authorities handled 1,520 IP-related violations, up 370.6% year-on-year and accounting for more than 40% of all violations detected. In the digital sphere, more than 9,130 infringing products were removed and over 2,000 online storefronts were blocked for suspected sales of counterfeit, substandard or IP-infringing goods.
Challenges of handling violations in digital environment
Judge Hoang Nghia Hai, who regularly adjudicates IP cases at the Hanoi specialised court, noted that the nature of IP disputes and infringements has changed significantly with the rapid development of digital technology. While violations once occurred mainly in physical markets, most now take place online, where they spread faster, operate on a larger scale and employ increasingly sophisticated methods.
The targets of infringement have also evolved beyond traditional goods, trademarks and industrial designs to include customer data, software, digital copyrights, trade secrets and brand reputation.
Offenders frequently exploit advanced technologies, including anonymous accounts, overseas servers, virtual private networks (VPNs), artificial intelligence and intermediary systems to conceal identities and erase digital traces. Counterfeit and infringing operations are often fragmented into multiple stages and conducted through livestreams, social media platforms and delivery services to evade detection.
One of the greatest challenges facing courts is the collection, verification and assessment of electronic evidence. Unlike traditional forms of evidence, digital data can be altered, deleted or manipulated within a short period of time. In many cases, infringing content has already been removed from the internet by the time courts begin verification. Identifying the individuals behind websites, social media accounts or online business systems is also difficult because violators often use multiple layers of technical intermediaries to conceal their identities.
Thanh said many violations are committed through social media platforms, e-commerce marketplaces and intermediary systems hosted abroad, while the collection of electronic evidence also remains heavily dependent on cooperation from cross-border digital platforms, resulting in delays or incomplete information. Meanwhile, Vietnam still lacks sufficient specialised experts and institutions capable of conducting advanced digital forensics and assessments of highly technical violations.
Judges handling IP-related civil, commercial and administrative cases have called for stronger mechanisms to preserve evidence at an early stage, allowing courts to intervene promptly when there is a risk that evidence may be destroyed, altered or concealed.
Although Vietnamese law has recognised electronic evidence for many years, legal experts said further improvements are needed in regulations governing digital evidence, data collection and the responsibilities of intermediary platforms in providing information.
Deputy Chief Judge Dinh Thi Kieu My of the Hanoi court said procedures for collecting, preserving and evaluating electronic evidence should be standardised in line with international practices, particularly regarding data integrity, authenticity and chain-of-custody requirements.
Judge Nguyen Che Linh of the Can Tho People’s Court proposed standardising legal definitions and terminology related to electronic evidence and introducing clearer criteria for assessing the evidentiary value of electronic data messages. He also called for a dedicated legal and technical framework covering the collection, preservation and forensic examination of electronic evidence, including scenarios involving deleted data recovery, cloud computing platforms and social media.
Tang Duc Khuong from Vision & Associates suggested that Vietnam should consider developing a new intellectual property law capable of comprehensively addressing emerging challenges and ensuring a more coherent legal framework for the digital era./.
VNA
