The First Three Precedents in the Field of Intellectual Property Adopted by the Council of Judges of the Supreme People’s Court

On 24 September 2026, the Council of Judges of the Supreme People’s Court (SPC) adopted three precedents in the field of intellectual property (IP) following a voting session on the draft precedents on the same day. This is the first time the SPC has approved precedents in the IP field.

Although Vietnam is not a common law country, under the regulations, once precedents have been selected and published by the SPC, they are to be studied and applied in adjudication 30 days from the date of publication. In adjudicating, Judges and People’s Assessors must study and apply precedents, ensuring that cases with similar legal circumstances are resolved consistently. Where a case has similar legal circumstances but the Court does not apply a precedent, it must clearly state the reasons in the Court’s judgment or decision. Accordingly, the approval of the first three IP precedents is significant and enhances consistency in the adjudication of IP cases in court, in the context of an increasing number of IP cases.

The official texts of the precedents are still being finalized. Below is a brief summary of the issues considered in the three precedents, based on the published drafts of the three precedents.

The First Draft Precedent

The first precedent concerns the basis for determining the amount of compensation for damage caused by infringement of copyright in computer software. The source of the first precedent is Appellate Judgment No. 07/2023/KDTM-PT dated 10 March 2023 of the High-level People’s Court in Hanoi in a business and commercial dispute concerning copyright in computer software.

• Before being sued, the defendant had been subject to an administrative penalty imposed by a competent state authority for copying and using computer software protected by the plaintiff’s copyright.
• The plaintiff sued for compensation for damage to the copyright owner and provided the computer software license contracts that the plaintiff had performed as the basis for determining the amount of compensation.
• The Court relied on the most recent price for the license of the computer software prior to the time of the IP infringement as the basis for determining the amount of compensation. The Court found that the plaintiff had proven its damage from the defendant’s infringement of copyright, as the price for the license of the computer software program was the actual price applied in Vietnam. The Court accepted the plaintiff’s claimed compensation corresponding to the value of the software package licensed immediately before the defendant’s infringement (on the basis of a license contract to use this same software to another company in Vietnam).
• The documents used by the plaintiff to prove its claim for damages included: license contracts to use the software to other companies in Vietnam, and invoices for payments made under those contracts.

This precedent opens up a flexible approach for courts, allowing them to rely on actual transactions for the license to use IP subject matter, instead of requiring the plaintiff to prove the amount of actual damage and the causal link between the actual damage and the specific infringing act of the defendant, as provided under the general principle for determining damages in IP disputes.

The Second Draft Precedent

The second precedent concerns the compensation of attorney fees and the burden of proving copyright where there is contrary evidence. The source of the second precedent is Appellate Judgment No. 66/2023/KDTM-PT dated 27 June 2023 of the High-level People’s Court in Ho Chi Minh City in a business and commercial dispute concerning copyright in a musical work.

• The defendant had been granted a copyright registration certificate by the competent authority for a musical work, including its lyrics, on 24 April 2019. The plaintiff sued the defendant, claiming to be the author of a poem whose content coincided with the lyrics of the musical work for which the defendant had been granted the copyright registration certificate. The plaintiff presented evidence proving that the plaintiff had first posted and published the poem on the social network Facebook on 13 June 2014, before the defendant registered the copyright.
• The Court determined that the plaintiff had contrary evidence proving that the plaintiff was the author of the poem whose content coincided with the lyrics of the musical work for which the defendant had been granted the copyright registration certificate, so the defendant bore the burden of proving its copyright in these lyrics, even though the defendant had been granted a copyright registration certificate covering the lyrics. In this case, the defendant failed to present documents or evidence to prove its copyright prior to the time the plaintiff published the poem on Facebook. Accordingly, the Court declared that the plaintiff was the person with copyright in these lyrics.
• The plaintiff presented a legal services contract with a law firm, under which the service fee was payable within 03 days of receiving compensation for damages from the defendant, as the basis for claiming compensation for attorney fees. The Court determined that attorney fees are reasonable expenses incurred to protect the lawful rights and interests of an IP right owner whose rights have been infringed, so even where the plaintiff had not actually paid these attorney fees, the Court still ruled that the defendant must compensate these attorney fees under the legal services contract between the plaintiff and the law firm representing the plaintiff.

This precedent has great practical significance for the compensation of attorney fees even where the fees have not actually been paid as of the time of trial, and for determining the parties’ burden of proof in copyright disputes even where one party holds a copyright registration certificate but evidence emerges rebutting the copyright asserted by the other party.

The Third Draft Precedent

The third precedent concerns the determination of criminal liability for acts infringing industrial property rights. The source of the third precedent is First-Instance Criminal Judgment No. 04/2026/HS-ST dated 12 January 2026 of the People’s Court of Hai Phong City in a criminal case of infringement of industrial property rights involving trademark-counterfeit goods.

• Initially, the accused’s infringement of industrial property rights was discovered upon inspection by the Hai Phong City Market Surveillance Authority in coordination with the Economic Police Division of the Hai Phong City Police: footwear, sandals and handbags bearing trademarks protected in Vietnam, which the defendant traded in without permission of the owners of those trademarks.
• The Vietnam Intellectual Property Research Institute (VIPRI) conducted an assessment and concluded that the footwear, sandals and handbags traded by the defendant were trademark counterfeiting goods.
• The defendant intentionally infringed industrial property rights in trademarks protected in Vietnam (by trading in footwear, sandals and handbags bearing signs identical or confusingly similar to the protected trademarks) without the permission of the owners of those trademarks.
• Accordingly, there were sufficient grounds to determine that the defendant’s conduct constituted the criminal offence of “infringement of industrial property rights” under Clause 1, Article 226 of the Criminal Code.

This precedent helps clarify the analysis of the constituent elements of a criminal offence, and thereby the determination of criminal liability for acts infringing industrial property rights, particularly in cases involving trademark-counterfeit goods.

The three selected precedents above concern issues that frequently arise in the resolution of IP cases, in particular the determination of damages, which is often difficult for plaintiffs in proving actual damage, the burden of proving authorship in copyright where there is a conflict, and the criminal handling of acts infringing industrial property rights. In addition to serving as a reference source for the Court in resolving cases with similar legal circumstances, these precedents also give right holders and other parties involved in legal proceedings a better understanding and a preliminary means of assessing their cases within the context of how courts interpret and apply the law 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.