Draft Resolution of the Council of Judges of the Supreme People’s Court Guiding the Resolution of Disputes and Lawsuits over Intellectual Property Rights

Introduction

The Council of Judges of the Supreme People’s Court is developing, and seeking comments on, a Draft Resolution guiding the application of a number of legal provisions in the resolution of disputes and lawsuits over intellectual property (“IP”) rights (Draft No. 2, dated 16/9/2026, hereinafter the “Draft Resolution”).

The Draft Resolution covers all fields of IP disputes within the jurisdiction of the People’s Courts, from copyright, related rights and industrial property rights to rights in plant varieties, while clarifying many practical legal issues that remain open in adjudication. Below is a summary of the notable contents of the Draft Resolution.

Notable Contents

1.Scope of Regulation and Types of Disputes within the Court’s Jurisdiction

The Draft Resolution provides for its scope of application to disputes and lawsuits over IP rights in the civil, business, commercial and administrative fields. The types of disputes and lawsuits within the jurisdiction of the People’s Courts include:

• Disputes over copyright (including specific groups of disputes, from disputes between co-authors and owners to disputes arising from copyright infringement, inheritance of copyright, etc.);
• Disputes over rights related to copyright (rights of performers, producers of sound/video recordings, broadcasting organizations, etc.);
• Disputes over industrial property rights (inventions, industrial designs, layout designs of semiconductor integrated circuits, trademarks, geographical indications, trade names, trade secrets, unfair competition, etc.);
• Disputes over rights in plant varieties;
• Disputes arising from conflicts of rights between IP subject matter;
• Disputes involving abuse of procedures for protecting IP rights;
• Administrative lawsuits, such as lawsuits against administrative decisions and administrative acts concerning IP rights.

2.Determining Standing to Sue

The Draft Resolution specifically lists the persons entitled to sue in each field, including:

• For copyright and related rights: authors, right owners, lawful heirs, assignees/licensees, collective rights management organizations, and competent state authorities;
• For industrial property rights: owners of protection titles, authors of inventions/industrial designs, and assignees/licensees;
• For rights in plant varieties: authors of plant varieties, holders of protection titles, heirs, or assignees/licensees.

3.Classifying Disputes: Civil or Business and Commercial

The Draft Resolution clarifies that:

• Disputes arising from transactions concerning IP rights between organizations and individuals → are classified as business and commercial disputes;
• Disputes arising from infringing acts (not arising from a transaction) where all parties have a profit-making purpose → are also classified as business and commercial disputes;
• Disputes arising from infringing acts where at least one party has no profit-making purpose → are classified as civil disputes.

4.Preliminary Injunctions

The Draft Resolution provides detailed guidance on the conditions for applying preliminary injunctions (“PI”) under Article 206 of the IP Law, covering two cases:

• There is a risk of irreparable damage (to property, reputation, competitive advantage, etc.);
• Goods suspected of infringement, or related evidence, are at risk of being dispersed or destroyed.

The requesting person must provide the corresponding security measures as prescribed by law.

5.Civil Measures the Court May Apply

In the course of resolving a case, the Court may decide to apply one or several of the following civil measures concurrently:

• Compelling termination of the infringing act;
• Compelling a public apology and correction (at the trial hearing, in the press, in the digital environment, etc.);
• Compelling performance of civil obligations;
• Compelling compensation for damages (material and moral damages);
• Compelling the destruction, or distribution for non-commercial purposes, of infringing goods, materials and means; in particular, mandatory destruction of trademark-counterfeit goods and pirated goods (except in certain special cases prescribed by the Government);
• Compelling the removal, hiding or disabling of access to infringing information, content, accounts, websites and applications in the digital environment.

6.Determining Damages and the Amount of Compensation

The Draft Resolution provides detailed guidance on determining damages and the amount of compensation:

• Material damage includes: loss of property (reduction in the value of IP rights); reduction in income and profits; loss of business opportunities; and reasonable expenses to prevent and remedy the damage.
• Moral damage is harm to honor, dignity, reputation, standing and brand due to infringement of the personal rights of the injured party.
• Bases for determining the amount of compensation: (i) the plaintiff’s actual reduction in profits; (ii) the price for licensing the IP subject matter; (iii) other calculation methods permitted by law; and (iv) an amount fixed by the Court where actual damage cannot be determined.
• In determining the profits obtained by the defendant, the Court must deduct the expenses the defendant has incurred and the portion of profits from other activities unrelated to the infringing act.

7.Attorney Fees

• Reasonable attorney fees (attorney remuneration, travel expenses, accommodation, etc.) may be claimed from the losing party, in proportion to the claims accepted by the Court.
• If the Court concludes that the defendant did not commit the infringing act, the defendant is also entitled to request the plaintiff to pay reasonable attorney fees.

Conclusion

The Draft Resolution of the Council of Judges of the Supreme People’s Court is an important step toward the uniform application of IP law in the Courts. With detailed guidance on jurisdiction, standing to sue, and the determination of damages and compensation, the Resolution, once issued, will create a uniform judicial legal framework, helping to enhance the feasibility and effectiveness of civil measures in protecting IP rights in Vietnam.

However, certain issues commonly encountered or highly possible to occur in practice in IP disputes, such as resolving disputes where invalidation of a protection title is requested, and the possible application of the “Doctrine of Estoppel” in adjudication practice, etc., are not yet addressed in this Draft Resolution. It is hoped that, with public comments, these issues will be included in the Resolution so that the Courts have a legal basis for consistent application in adjudication practice.

Should you require further assistance regarding the above matters, please feel free to contact us at the following e-mail address: hanoi@duongtran.vn.