Introduction
The Trump administration has launched an investigation under Section 301 of the Trade Act into Vietnam’s intellectual property protection policies and their enforcement. The Office of the United States Trade Representative, commonly known as the USTR, had designated Vietnam as a “Priority Foreign Country,” the category of greatest concern, in its report on intellectual property protection and enforcement released at the end of April 2026. The current investigation was initiated in response to that designation, and depending on its outcome, it could lead to new tariffs or non-tariff measures.
While the USTR has acknowledged that Vietnam has taken certain steps in recent years to address concerns relating to intellectual property rights, it has also pointed out that infringement continues to undermine the competitiveness of U.S. innovators and creators. At the time of reporting, the Vietnamese government had not commented on the matter.
This news should not be viewed merely as a trade dispute between the United States and Vietnam. It shows that the protection of intellectual property rights has become directly connected to national industrial policy, supply chains, digital content distribution, and the overseas business risks faced by companies.
What Is Section 301 of the Trade Act?
Section 301 of the Trade Act is a framework that allows the United States to conduct investigations and, where necessary, take countermeasures when it determines that the policies or practices of a foreign government are unfairly harming U.S. trade interests. Inadequate protection or enforcement of intellectual property rights can also fall within the scope of Section 301, as it may impair market access and competitiveness for U.S. companies.
In other words, this investigation is not limited to the question of what types of counterfeit goods or pirated products are circulating within Vietnam. From the U.S. perspective, the issue is the extent to which Vietnam’s institutional operation and enforcement framework are harming the revenue opportunities of U.S. companies in relation to copyrighted works, brands, software, technologies, and content.
Issues involving intellectual property rights should ordinarily be handled through domestic systems such as civil litigation, criminal enforcement, administrative regulation, and customs seizures. However, when enforcement is viewed as continuously inadequate, the issue can develop into one involving trade sanctions or tariff measures. This is where the significance of the current news lies.
Background to the Concerns Over Vietnam
The USTR is not taking issue with Vietnam on the basis that Vietnam lacks an intellectual property legal system altogether. Rather, the main focus is that, although the legal framework is gradually being developed, actual enforcement is not functioning sufficiently.
According to reports and explanations from the USTR, the central concerns include pirated online content, the distribution of counterfeit goods, the sale of counterfeit products through e-commerce and live streaming, the effectiveness of customs seizures, and the use of unlicensed software within companies. From the perspective of rights holders, these are not isolated infringements, but problems that threaten their revenue structures themselves.
This is particularly true in the field of digital content, where infringing websites and illegal streaming services are used across national borders. If the operators, servers, or related businesses are located in Vietnam, the impact does not remain confined to the Vietnamese market. Creators and content businesses in the United States, Japan, Europe, and elsewhere may also suffer damage.
Counterfeit goods, too, may not only be sold in the local market but may also be distributed to other countries through cross-border e-commerce and supply chains. Countries with weak intellectual property enforcement are more likely to be used as manufacturing, sales, or transit hubs for counterfeit goods. For this reason, there is a certain rationality in the United States treating Vietnam’s institutional operation as a trade issue.
Tariff Measures Have Not Yet Been Confirmed
At this stage, it is important to note that measures such as tariffs have not immediately been imposed. At present, the United States has only initiated an investigation. Going forward, the USTR will consult with the Vietnamese side and solicit opinions from relevant parties before determining whether Vietnam’s policies or practices raise issues under Section 301 and, if so, what measures should be taken.
Therefore, it would be premature at this point to state definitively that the United States will impose additional tariffs on Vietnam. On the other hand, a Section 301 investigation is not merely an information-gathering exercise; it is a procedure that can serve as the basis for future countermeasures. For the Vietnamese government and companies based in Vietnam, this can be seen as an important stage at which their relationship with the U.S. market must be reassessed.
The investigation may also function as a negotiating tool for the United States. Against the backdrop of possible tariffs or non-tariff measures, the United States is likely to pressure Vietnam to strengthen intellectual property enforcement, make criminal penalties more effective, improve coordination among administrative authorities, reinforce customs measures, and improve responses to online infringement.
Intellectual Property Protection Can No Longer Be Treated as a Purely Domestic Issue
A broader trend visible from this matter is that intellectual property protection is no longer an issue that can be completed solely within each country’s domestic legal system.
Business activities cross national borders. Manufacturing bases, sales offices, e-commerce platforms, payment methods, advertising revenues, server locations, domain management, and logistics routes often span multiple countries. As a result, weak enforcement against intellectual property infringement in one country is no longer treated as merely that country’s problem. It is increasingly treated as an issue that distorts international competitive conditions.
Fields such as movies, music, games, anime, software, branded goods, pharmaceuticals, food products, and daily necessities are particularly vulnerable to the effects of intellectual property infringement. In these fields, when infringing goods or illegal content circulate at lower prices than legitimate products, rights holders lose revenue, and consumer safety and market trust may also be damaged.
Intellectual property protection is not simply a system for protecting rights holders. It is also a foundation for protecting consumers who choose legitimate products, encouraging investment in research and development and creative activities, and maintaining a fair competitive environment. If that foundation is viewed as weak, increased trade pressure is a natural consequence.
Implications for Japanese Companies
Although this investigation concerns the United States and Vietnam, it is not irrelevant to Japanese companies. Vietnam is becoming increasingly important for Japanese companies as a manufacturing base, sales market, development base, and outsourcing destination. Companies doing business locally need to reexamine their measures against counterfeit goods, trademark management, copyright management, trade secret management, and software license management.
For example, when outsourcing manufacturing in Vietnam, it is important to clearly define in contracts with the contractor the ownership of intellectual property rights, the management of drawings and data, the management of molds, subcontracting to third parties, confidentiality obligations, and the disposal of data after termination of the contract. When selling products locally, companies need to file trademark applications at an early stage and secure response routes in the event that counterfeit goods appear.
Companies also need to pay attention to software use by local subsidiaries and business partners. The use of unlicensed software is not merely a license violation; it can also affect corporate compliance and business credibility. In international transactions, intellectual property compliance is often included in supplier selection criteria and audit items.
Responses Required from Vietnam
Vietnam has been increasing its presence in international supply chains through the growth of its manufacturing and IT industries. At the same time, if the perception becomes entrenched that enforcement of intellectual property rights is weak, this will have a negative impact on the attraction of high-value-added industries and technology transfer.
Strengthening intellectual property protection is not merely a matter of responding to U.S. demands. It is also necessary for Vietnam’s own industrial upgrading. Once domestic companies enter the stage of developing their own brands, technologies, and content, a market environment in which intellectual property rights are effectively protected becomes essential.
Accordingly, what is important for Vietnam is not merely formal legal reform, but the demonstration of an enforcement system capable of actually deterring infringement. The key questions will be how criminal, civil, and administrative systems function in practice; whether customs, police, courts, and administrative agencies cooperate sufficiently; and whether online infringement can be addressed promptly.
Conclusion
This Section 301 investigation once again shows that the protection of intellectual property rights is closely linked to trade policy. The United States views Vietnam’s intellectual property protection and enforcement as inadequate and believes that this undermines the competitiveness of U.S. innovators and creators.
That said, measures such as tariffs have not been finalized at this point. The focus going forward will be what improvement measures Vietnam presents through consultations and the investigation process, and how strongly the United States chooses to respond.
For Japanese companies as well, this news provides an opportunity to reassess intellectual property risks in overseas business expansion. When entering growth markets, companies need an intellectual property strategy that considers not only manufacturing costs and market size, but also rights acquisition, contract management, anti-counterfeiting measures, software management, and trade secret protection.
Intellectual property rights are no longer a topic for legal departments alone. They have become a management issue connected to international transactions, supply chains, brand strategy, content businesses, and trade policy. The U.S. investigation into Vietnam is a symbolic event that illustrates this reality.