Introduction
At a regular press conference held on May 14, 2026, Pham Thu Hang, spokesperson for Vietnam’s Ministry of Foreign Affairs, expressed Vietnam’s view on the 2026 “Special 301 Report” released by the United States. The Office of the United States Trade Representative, or USTR, published the report on April 30, 2026, and identified Vietnam as a “Priority Foreign Country,” meaning a country of the highest concern in terms of intellectual property protection. In response to this designation, the USTR stated that it would decide within 30 days whether to initiate an investigation under Section 301 of the Trade Act.
In response, Vietnam explained that its consistent position is to strictly crack down on intellectual property rights infringements and further strengthen protection and enforcement. In particular, Vietnam emphasized that since the enactment of its Intellectual Property Law in 2005, it has made several amendments and, through the 2025 amendment, has developed a modern legal framework that also addresses its obligations under new-generation free trade agreements.
The Gap Between the U.S. Assessment and Vietnam’s Self-Assessment
What is important in this news is that the United States has positioned Vietnam not merely as a country subject to monitoring, but as the more serious category of a “Priority Foreign Country.” This indicates that the United States views Vietnam’s intellectual property protection not simply as being in the middle of institutional improvement, but as a trade issue.
On the other hand, Vietnam’s response is not so much a direct rebuttal as it is a request for a fair and objective assessment, while pointing to its “development of the legal system,” “enforcement record,” and “international cooperation.” In other words, Vietnam does not appear to be completely denying U.S. concerns. Rather, it seems to be trying to frame the issue as one in which its efforts at improvement have not been sufficiently recognized.
This gap is a typical issue surrounding intellectual property systems. Countries that have developed their laws argue that “the system has improved,” while right holders and trading partners place emphasis on whether infringement has actually decreased in the market, whether courts and administrative sanctions are functioning adequately, and whether online infringement can be addressed promptly. The existence of a legal system and the assessment of its effectiveness are not the same thing.
The Numbers Show Both “Stronger Enforcement” and “Deep-Rooted Infringement”
Vietnam explained that in 2025, its market management authorities handled 3,306 intellectual property infringement cases in traditional markets and 599 cases in e-commerce and social media. It is also reported that more than 1,200 websites suspected of copyright infringement were blocked.
These figures serve as evidence that Vietnam is actually moving forward with enforcement. At the same time, however, they also indicate that infringement still exists on a large scale. What deserves particular attention is that the digital sphere, including not only traditional markets but also e-commerce, social media, and copyright-infringing websites, has clearly emerged as a problem area.
In the past, intellectual property infringement mainly involved the distribution and in-store sale of counterfeit goods. Today, however, forms of infringement have become more dispersed, including the sale of counterfeit goods on e-commerce platforms, sales through social media, illegal distribution of video, music, and audiovisual content, and unauthorized use of software. Addressing these issues requires more than administrative crackdowns alone. Cooperation among multiple actors, including platform operators, right holders, payment service providers, and logistics providers, is necessary.
The Meaning of the 2025 Amendment Is Not the “Completion of Legal Development”
It is significant that Vietnam is emphasizing the 2025 amendment to its Intellectual Property Law. Developing a system that responds to new-generation free trade agreements is essential for creating an international investment environment. In countries where intellectual property protection is weak, R&D-oriented companies, brand companies, and content companies find it difficult to expand their business with confidence.
However, the amendment of the law is only a starting point. In practice, what matters is whether administrative agencies can act swiftly, whether courts can make decisions with sufficient expertise, whether damages have adequate deterrent effect, whether customs authorities can stop counterfeit goods at the border, and whether deletion and blocking measures against online infringement function properly and promptly.
What the United States appears to be taking issue with is precisely this “effectiveness of enforcement.” The fact that Vietnam is advancing legal reform may itself be viewed positively. However, the future focus will be on how far such reforms actually change market realities.
Intellectual Property Issues May Become a Negotiating Card in U.S.-Vietnam Trade Relations
The Special 301 Report is an annual report in the field of intellectual property, but at the same time, it is also a means of pressure in U.S. trade policy. Following its designation of Vietnam as a Priority Foreign Country, the USTR has stated that it will decide whether to initiate an investigation under Section 301 of the Trade Act. If an investigation is launched, strengthening intellectual property protection will become a more forceful trade negotiation theme through consultations and corrective demands.
What should be noted here is that intellectual property issues do not exist in isolation. Vietnam has become increasingly important as a manufacturing base and is also a key country in the supply chains of U.S. companies. At the same time, if issues such as counterfeit goods, digital copyright infringement, brand protection, and software licensing are left unaddressed, dissatisfaction among U.S. companies will increase.
For this reason, intellectual property issues are themes that can easily become linked with tariffs, investment, export controls, digital trade, and supply chain restructuring. For Vietnam, it is necessary to move beyond the stage of merely “developing domestic intellectual property laws” and strengthen IP enforcement as a form of risk management to reduce trade friction.
Implications for Japanese Companies
This news is not limited to a problem between the United States and Vietnam. It also means that the importance of intellectual property management is increasing for Japanese companies that have production bases, sales networks, contractors, or local partners in Vietnam.
First, from the perspective of anti-counterfeiting measures, trademark registrations, design registrations, customs registrations, and local monitoring systems will become increasingly important. In a phase where enforcement by Vietnamese authorities is being strengthened, whether right holders have acquired appropriate rights and can organize infringement information for submission to the authorities will affect the actual speed of response.
Next, from a compliance perspective, it will become important to confirm software use and license management by local subsidiaries and contractors, the use of advertising materials, images, and videos, and third-party rights in e-commerce sales. As enforcement against intellectual property infringement becomes stronger, not only sellers of counterfeit goods but also companies that unknowingly handle infringing goods or unauthorized content will face risks.
Furthermore, from the perspective of business partner management, companies will need to confirm whether local suppliers and distributors are infringing third-party intellectual property rights. Since the United States is treating intellectual property issues as trade concerns, global companies must be conscious not only of risks within Vietnam but also of reputational risks in export markets.
Vietnam’s Challenge Is to Shift Toward “Enforcement That Is Recognized”
Vietnam is trying to show the international community that it is strengthening intellectual property protection. This direction itself is reasonable. Intellectual property protection is essential infrastructure for attracting foreign investment, promoting technology transfer, developing brands, and advancing the digital economy.
However, what Vietnam will be required to do going forward is not simply to accumulate enforcement numbers. It must demonstrate an enforcement system that, from the perspective of the United States and right holders, is predictable, swift, deterrent, and fairly operated. In other words, Vietnam needs to move from the stage of explaining that it is “making efforts” to the stage where it is recognized that “market behavior is changing.”
In that sense, the remarks by the spokesperson for Vietnam’s Ministry of Foreign Affairs are not merely a rebuttal. Rather, they indicate that Vietnam is repositioning intellectual property protection as an element in building international trust.
Conclusion
This news shows that intellectual property rights are no longer a topic only for legal specialists, but a matter directly connected to trade policy, the investment environment, supply chains, and trust in the digital economy.
Through the Special 301 Report, the United States is strongly demanding effective intellectual property protection from Vietnam. Meanwhile, Vietnam is pointing to legal amendments and enforcement results and calling for an objective and fair assessment. This confrontation is not simply a matter of “U.S. pressure” and “Vietnamese resistance.” Rather, it is a question of how a growing market can earn trust within the framework of international intellectual property rules.
The key issue going forward will be whether Vietnam can connect institutional development to actual market improvement. Assessments of intellectual property protection will have a major impact on Vietnam’s attractiveness as an investment destination, its reliability as an export base, and its trade relations with major countries, including the United States.