Global Vietnam Lawyers is pleased to introduce an article by Lawyer Le Quang Vy entitled “Mediation in Intellectual Property Disputes,” published on the website of the Vietnam Mediation Center (VMC) on 8 January 2026. The article is excerpted from Mediation Publication No. HG02, issued by VMC in December 2023.
***
Abstract
Le Quang Vy is a Partner at Global Vietnam Lawyers LLC and concurrently serves as a Mediator at the Vietnam Mediation Center (VMC) under the Vietnam International Arbitration Centre (VIAC). With extensive professional experience in the field of intellectual property and dispute resolution, the author has a particular interest in the application of commercial mediation as an alternative to court litigation in disputes involving copyright, related rights, and other intellectual property rights. In this article, he examines the landscape of intellectual property disputes and the existing resolution mechanisms—ranging from negotiation and court litigation to arbitration—highlights the limitations of public litigation, and explains why commercial mediation, with its confidentiality, flexibility, and court-recognized outcomes, has increasingly emerged as a more suitable option for the concerned parties in intellectual property disputes.
Content
Vietnam’s Law on Intellectual Property (“IP Law”) was first promulgated in 2005 and has since undergone three rounds of amendments, in 2009, 2019 and 2022. It can be affirmed that matters related to intellectual property have become increasingly diverse and complex, far beyond what could have been anticipated nearly two decades ago. In terms of resolving IP disputes, in addition to traditional methods such as negotiation or litigation before the courts, IP legislation has expanded the legal framework to facilitate and encourage parties to opt for alternative dispute resolution mechanisms, including commercial mediation and commercial arbitration. These methods offer notable advantages in terms of simplified procedures, faster resolution, and the confidentiality of related information. Particularly for artists and creative professionals, who are often keen to preserve their public image, commercial mediation stands out as the most optimal solution for resolving disputes relating to copyright or related rights, given its strong emphasis on confidentiality.
1. IP disputes and resolution methods
IP disputes typically arise from acts infringing upon IP rights that are legally protected and owned by right holders. From a legal perspective, an act is deemed an infringement of IP rights when all four of the following elements are established: (i) the subject matter under consideration falls within the category with its intellectual property rights being protected; (ii) there exists an infringing element in the subject matter under review; (iii) the person committing the act is neither the IP right holder nor a person authorized by law or by a competent authority; and (iv) the act in question occurs within the territory of Vietnam.
To prevent and address IP infringements, Vietnamese law allows right holders to proactively protect their IP rights through the following measures:
- Apply technological measures to protect rights, provide right management information, or apply other technological measures to prevent infringement of IP rights;
- Request organizations or individuals committing IP infringement to cease the infringing acts, remove and delete infringing content from telecommunications networks and the internet, issue public apologies and corrections, and compensate for damages;
- Request competent state authorities to handle IP infringement in accordance with relevant legal regulations; and
- File for a lawsuit at a court of law or arbitration center to protect their legitimate rights and interests.
In addition, parties committing acts of IP infringement may be subject to administrative sanctions or even criminal prosecution.
The civil resolution of IP disputes may include self-negotiation between the parties, mediation, and/or recourse to commercial mediation, and/or dispute resolution through commercial arbitration or competent courts. Broadly speaking, these methods may be understood as follows:
- Negotiation: The disputing parties engage in direct discussions, independently reach arrangements, and resolve their disagreements in order to settle the dispute without the involvement or assistance of any third party. However, negotiation is a mechanism that places a strong emphasis on the parties’ voluntariness and good faith, without being governed or constrained by any legal framework. The outcome of negotiations largely depends on the parties’ will and subjective attitudes and lacks binding enforceability. Consequently, negotiation outcomes are often uncertain and lack practical enforceability.
- Commercial mediation: this involves the disputing parties agreeing to appoint a commercial mediation institution or an ad hoc mediator to act as an intermediary in facilitating the resolution of their disagreements;
- Arbitration and Court: they are fundamentally similar in that both are adjudicatory bodies empowered to render awards or judgments binding on the parties. However, it is necessary to distinguish between these two adjudicatory bodies. When choosing court litigation, parties are likely to face a number of limitations. In particular, due to the principle of open and public hearings, courts are generally unable to maintain confidentiality of the identities of the disputing parties or the intellectual property assets in dispute. Moreover, court proceedings are often protracted, resulting in significant time and cost burdens.
A well-known example is the copyright dispute between artist Le Phong Linh and Phan Thi Company in relation to the comic series “Thần Đồng Đất Việt.” From the time Le Phong Linh officially initiated legal proceedings against Phan Thi Company in April 2007 until the court rendered its final judgment on 18 February 2019, the case lasted nearly 12 years. The public nature of the case and the extensive attention from the media and public opinion inevitably had a certain impact on the reputations of both litigants. Moreover, as acts of intellectual property infringement have become increasingly diverse and sophisticated, IP-related disputes often involve a high degree of technical and professional complexity. Meanwhile, Vietnam’s court system has yet to establish specialized IP courts, resulting in a limited number of judges with the requisite expertise and experience in handling IP cases. This reality, in turn, affects both the duration of dispute resolution and the quality of the judgments rendered.
Compared with court litigation, arbitration offers distinct advantages, including streamlined procedures, greater efficiency in terms of time and cost, and a higher level of confidentiality. This is because arbitration does not adhere to the principle of public hearings, and arbitral hearings are conducted solely among the parties concerned. In addition, commercial arbitration institutions typically appoint arbitrators who are experts or lawyers with in-depth knowledge, professional competence, and practical experience in the field of intellectual property. Both arbitration and court are adjudicatory bodies and are generally regarded as measures of last resort, to be pursued only after negotiation and mediation efforts have failed.
2. Commercial mediation in IP disputes
Within the scope of this article, the author seeks to introduce a dispute resolution mechanism that remains relatively new in Vietnam, namely commercial mediation.
The practice of disputing parties jointly agreeing to appoint a third party as a neutral mediator when negotiation fails has long been recognized and encouraged by law. In practice, however, this option has rarely been seriously considered, largely because, in the past, negotiated or successful mediation outcomes lacked binding enforceability. This limitation however has largely been addressed since the entry into force of Decree No. 22/2017/ND-CP (“Decree 22”) on 15 April 2017. Article 16 of Decree 22 stipulates that written agreements reflecting successful mediation outcomes may be “considered for recognition in accordance with the civil procedure law.” Accordingly, Article 416 of the 2015 Civil Procedure Code authorizes courts to issue decisions recognizing successful mediation outcomes, provided that such outcomes are achieved through mediation conducted by “competent agencies, organizations, or individuals in accordance with the law on mediation.”
As noted above, commercial mediation also enables disputing parties to preserve confidentiality and to save time and costs compared with court litigation. The confidentiality of all information relating to the mediation process constitutes one of the three core principles of commercial mediation. Parties involved in IP disputes are often organizations or individuals who have established reputations and public images in their respective fields, particularly enterprises operating in the cultural and artistic sectors, as well as individual artists and creative professionals. Participation in prolonged and public court proceedings is undoubtedly a matter that these parties must carefully consider. Therefore, with its confidentiality principle, commercial mediation offers a more advantageous option for safeguarding the reputation and dignity of all parties as they seek a mutually acceptable resolution to their dispute.
Another notable advantage of commercial mediation lies in the parties’ ability to select a mediator from the roster of commercial mediators maintained by a mediation institution. This stands in contrast to court proceedings, where a judge is appointed to hear the case and the parties have no right to choose the adjudicator. Furthermore, parties may opt to participate in mediation sessions either in person or online, thereby saving time and costs—an especially valuable benefit in disputes involving foreign elements.
At present, a number of commercial mediation institutions have been established in Vietnam, among which the Vietnam Mediation Center (VMC) was the first, founded on 27 April 2018. VMC currently has 58 commercial mediators operating across all areas of law, including intellectual property. Other notable institutions include the Vietnam International Commercial Mediation Center, the Saigon Commercial Mediation Center, and the Southeast Asia Commercial Mediation Center, among others.
From a procedural perspective, IP disputes may be resolved through commercial mediation only where the parties have entered into a mediation agreement. Such an agreement may be concluded before or after a dispute arises, or at any stage during the dispute resolution process. Nevertheless, parties are advised to expressly provide for the priority of commercial mediation at the drafting stage of IP-related agreements, so as to ensure a clear basis for applying this mechanism should an IP dispute arise. VMC provides a standard mediation clause that parties may incorporate into their contracts, as follows: “Any dispute arising out of or in connection with this contract shall be resolved by mediation at the Vietnam Mediation Center (VMC) under the Vietnam International Arbitration Centre, in accordance with its Mediation Rules.” For IP disputes where no mediation agreement exists, the VMC Mediation Rules allow the Center to receive a Request for Mediation from one party, proposing that the other party resolve the dispute through mediation at VMC. VMC will then forward the Request for Mediation to the responding party and invite a response. VMC may also assist the parties in reaching a mediation agreement so that commercial mediation proceedings can be formally commenced.
The use of commercial mediation to resolve music copyright disputes is pretty popular in many jurisdictions worldwide. In practice, parties often favor out-of-court dispute resolution mechanisms such as mediation for several reasons, including simplified procedures, neutrality and impartiality, confidentiality, and a “win–win” approach that closely resembles contractual negotiations, thereby reducing adversarial confrontation.
Even the World Intellectual Property Organization (WIPO) actively encourages parties to resolve disputes through mediation or arbitration. WIPO also operates its own Arbitration and Mediation Center. Statistics from WIPO indicate a growing trend toward resolving disputes through mediation and arbitration under the auspices of WIPO.