On January 30, 2026, Prime Minister Pham Minh Chinh signed Directive 02/CT-TTg on strengthening the enforcement of intellectual property rights. In the context of the digital economy and deep integration, this document is seen as a decisive step to overcome current shortcomings in enforcement.
Current situation
The directive clearly acknowledges that, despite positive developments, intellectual property rights infringement remains complex, particularly in e-commerce and digital platforms. Counterfeit goods, trademark infringement, copyright violations, and the unauthorized copying and distribution of content cause significant damage to businesses and consumers, and negatively impact the national image.
The causes identified are quite comprehensive: the law has not kept pace with technological realities; the authority to impose penalties is limited; technical tools for detecting violations do not meet requirements; inter-agency coordination is lacking; and the compliance awareness of some organizations and individuals remains low. These are systemic “bottlenecks” that require a comprehensive solution rather than handling individual cases separately.
A new approach: “6 clear points” and personal responsibility.
The key point of the Directive is the “six clear principles”: clear person, clear task, clear time, clear responsibility, clear product, and clear authority. In particular, the Chairpersons of People’s Committees at all levels must bear responsibility if prolonged intellectual property infringement occurs within their jurisdiction.
This approach represents a shift from a “joint coordination” mechanism to one that emphasizes specific responsibilities. When responsibilities are individualized, the pressure to enforce them becomes clearer, while also reducing the tendency for agencies to pass the buck.
Improve legislation and increase penalties.
The directive assigns the task of researching and revising regulations on administrative penalties, expanding the scope of handling to include counterfeit goods bearing trademarks and geographical indications; and simultaneously proposing amendments to the Penal Code to broaden the elements of the crime and increase the level of criminal penalties for acts infringing intellectual property rights.
Given that current sanctions are not sufficiently deterrent, especially in the online environment, strengthening administrative and criminal penalties is expected to overcome the “punishment for continued operation” phenomenon and create a healthier competitive environment.
Applying technology and building a national database.
One notable development is the plan to build a national database on intellectual property rights enforcement by 2026, combining artificial intelligence, blockchain, and other technological solutions to detect, trace, and protect rights in the digital environment.
If implemented effectively, this database will help overcome the dispersion of information among forces such as the police, market management, customs, and courts, while increasing transparency and supporting management decision-making.
Inter-sectoral coordination and international cooperation
The directive calls for the coordinated participation of multiple ministries and agencies, from the Ministry of Public Security and the Ministry of National Defense to the Ministry of Industry and Trade, the Ministry of Finance, the Ministry of Education and Training, and the Ministry of Foreign Affairs. This affirms that the enforcement of intellectual property rights is an interdisciplinary task, linked to market management, anti-smuggling efforts, awareness education, and international cooperation.
Expectations and challenges
Directive 02/CT-TTg sets out a relatively comprehensive framework for action. However, the biggest challenge remains securing resources, enhancing professional capacity, and maintaining commitment to implementation in the long term.
In a context where innovation is the driving force of growth, protecting intellectual property is not only a requirement to comply with international commitments but also a condition for developing a domestic innovation ecosystem. The remaining issue lies in the effectiveness of its implementation in practice.
