Vietnam’s IP Investigation Could Reshape Nearshoring: What U.S. Businesses Need to Know

The United States is investigating Vietnam’s intellectual-property protection and enforcement practices. The proceeding could lead to tariffs or other trade measures—and it exposes a larger problem for companies moving production without first protecting their brands, technology, and contracts.

Vietnam has become one of the most important manufacturing and sourcing alternatives for U.S. businesses seeking to reduce their dependence on China.

American companies increasingly use Vietnamese factories to produce apparel, footwear, furniture, electronics, consumer products, machinery, automotive components, packaging, household goods, and other merchandise.

Vietnam is also developing as a market for U.S. software, entertainment, technology, pharmaceuticals, medical products, franchises, consumer brands, education, and professional services.

That commercial relationship is now facing a new legal complication.

On May 29, 2026, the Office of the United States Trade Representative initiated a formal investigation under Section 301 of the Trade Act of 1974 into Vietnam’s intellectual-property protection and enforcement practices.

The investigation follows USTR’s designation of Vietnam as a Priority Foreign Country in its 2026 Special 301 Report—the highest level of concern available under that process and the first time in 13 years that USTR placed any country in that category.[1]

USTR alleges that Vietnam has persistently failed to resolve concerns involving:

• Online copyright piracy;

• Counterfeit goods;

• Border enforcement;

• Corporate use of unlicensed software; and

• Theft of cable and satellite signals.

Vietnam has responded that it remains committed to strengthening intellectual-property protection, has taken enforcement and legislative measures, and will address the issues through bilateral consultations during the investigation.[2]

No final determination has been made.

The investigation does not establish that every Vietnamese factory, distributor, e-commerce platform, or business partner is engaged in infringement. It also does not mean that additional tariffs have already been imposed.

But it does create a meaningful risk that unresolved intellectual-property concerns could become a wider trade issue affecting companies that import from Vietnam—even when those companies are not directly involved in an IP dispute.

For U.S. businesses, the development should prompt two separate reviews:

1. Could a Section 301 trade action increase the cost or difficulty of importing from Vietnam?

2. Is the company’s intellectual property actually protected before it gives a Vietnamese factory, distributor, employee, developer, or commercial partner access to it?

The second question should not wait for the government’s answer to the first.

Why Vietnam Matters to U.S. Business

The commercial relationship between the United States and Vietnam has grown rapidly.

U.S. goods trade with Vietnam reached an estimated $209.5 billion in 2025. U.S. imports from Vietnam totaled approximately $193.8 billion—an increase of 42% from 2024—while U.S. exports to Vietnam totaled approximately $15.7 billion.[3]

That growth reflects several trends:

• Diversification away from China;

• Competitive manufacturing costs;

• An expanding industrial base;

• Investment in electronics and technology;

• Access to regional Asian supply chains;

• A young workforce;

• Growing consumer demand;

• Expanding e-commerce; and

• Vietnam’s participation in multiple international trade arrangements.

For many companies, Vietnam is now central to a “China-plus-one” strategy.

But changing the country of final production does not automatically eliminate the business risks associated with overseas manufacturing.

A company may reduce its exposure to Chinese tariffs or geopolitical concentration while remaining vulnerable to:

• Trademark theft;

• Counterfeiting;

• Unauthorized production;

• Loss of trade secrets;

• Undisclosed subcontracting;

• Software piracy;

• Customs problems;

• Transshipment allegations;

• Weak enforcement;

• Contract disputes; and

• New tariffs imposed on Vietnamese-origin products.

Nearshoring or supply-chain diversification is not complete merely because a new factory has been selected.

The legal structure must move with the production.

What Is a Special 301 “Priority Foreign Country”?

USTR conducts an annual review of intellectual-property protection and enforcement among U.S. trading partners under the Special 301 process.

Countries may be identified on:

• A Watch List;

• A Priority Watch List; or

• The more serious Priority Foreign Country category.

The Priority Foreign Country designation is reserved by statute for countries that USTR determines have particularly serious IP-related acts, policies, or practices with substantial adverse effects on U.S. products and that are not making sufficient progress through negotiations.

Vietnam is the only country identified as a Priority Foreign Country in the 2026 report.

That designation required USTR to decide whether to initiate a Section 301 investigation concerning the practices that formed the basis of the identification.

USTR initiated the investigation on May 29.

The designation and investigation are related, but they are not the same thing.

The Special 301 Report identifies the concerns.

The Section 301 investigation determines whether those concerns involve acts, policies, or practices that are unreasonable or discriminatory and burden or restrict U.S. commerce—and, if so, whether the United States should take responsive action.

What Happens During the Section 301 Investigation?

USTR has requested consultations with the Government of Vietnam and public comments from affected businesses, rights holders, industry groups, and other interested parties.

The public-comment deadline is July 2, 2026, at 11:59 p.m. Eastern Daylight Time.

USTR has asked for information concerning:

• Vietnam’s identified IP practices;

• Other practices allegedly denying adequate IP protection;

• Whether the practices are unreasonable or discriminatory;

• Whether they burden or restrict U.S. commerce;

• The nature and amount of harm to U.S. commerce; and

• What tariff or non-tariff action, if any, the United States should take.

Because the investigation arose from a Priority Foreign Country designation and does not involve formal dispute settlement under a trade agreement, USTR generally must make its determination within six months of initiation.

That places the initial statutory deadline around November 29, 2026.

The statute permits an additional three-month extension in specified circumstances.[4]

Several outcomes are possible.

Vietnam and the United States Could Reach a Resolution

Vietnam could agree to legal reforms, enforcement benchmarks, increased prosecutions, improved customs measures, platform responsibilities, or other commitments satisfactory to USTR.

USTR Could Find the Practices Actionable

USTR could determine that Vietnam’s practices are unreasonable or discriminatory and burden U.S. commerce.

It would then determine what response is appropriate.

USTR Could Decline to Take Trade Action

USTR could conclude that the evidence, reforms, negotiations, or national economic interests do not justify additional measures.

The Investigation Could Lead to Continued Monitoring

The parties could establish an action plan, implementation schedule, or continuing consultation process.

At present, no final remedy has been announced.

What Actions Could the United States Take?

The Federal Register notice expressly asks whether tariff or non-tariff action should be taken.

Potential measures could include:

• Additional tariffs on selected Vietnamese products;

• Broader tariffs;

• Import restrictions;

• Suspension or limitation of trade benefits;

• Negotiated enforcement commitments;

• Monitoring and reporting obligations; or

• Other trade measures authorized by Section 301.

The exact product scope and rate—if any—cannot currently be confirmed.

A Section 301 action does not have to be limited to pirated movies, counterfeit goods, software, or the specific products most directly associated with the alleged IP violations.

Trade remedies may be designed to place broader economic pressure on the foreign government.

That creates exposure for U.S. importers that have no direct role in the underlying infringement allegations.

A furniture importer, apparel company, electronics distributor, machinery buyer, or consumer-products retailer could potentially face additional costs if its tariff classifications are included in a future action.

Businesses should not assume that having no intellectual-property dispute in Vietnam means they have no Section 301 risk.

The Investigation Does Not Yet Impose Tariffs

This distinction is essential.

The investigation itself:

• Does not impose a new duty;

• Does not determine a tariff rate;

• Does not identify covered products;

• Does not invalidate existing contracts;

• Does not cancel Vietnamese trademark or patent registrations;

• Does not prove infringement by a particular company; and

• Does not prohibit U.S. businesses from operating in or sourcing from Vietnam.

Businesses should continue complying with the tariff rules currently in effect.

They should not add a nonexistent “Vietnam IP tariff” to customs entries or customer invoices.

But long-term quotations and supply agreements should recognize that tariff treatment may change before future shipments enter the United States.

USTR’s Five Principal Areas of Concern

1. Online Copyright Piracy

USTR alleges that Vietnam continues to host online piracy sites and services reaching audiences beyond Vietnam.

The government’s concerns include streaming platforms, cyberlockers, movie and television piracy, music piracy, video-game piracy, digital assets, domain names, and mirror sites used to replace services after enforcement action.

The issue is particularly important for companies producing or licensing:

• Film;

• Television;

• Music;

• Software;

• Video games;

• Online courses;

• Books;

• Photography;

• Digital publications;

• Sports broadcasts; and

• Subscription content.

A digital product can be copied in Vietnam and distributed globally without physical goods ever crossing a border.

For U.S. creators and media companies, the commercial harm may therefore occur in many markets simultaneously.

The contract with a Vietnamese distributor or platform should not merely prohibit unauthorized copying.

It should also address:

• Streaming;

• Downloading;

• Caching;

• Sublicensing;

• Domain names;

• Mirror sites;

• Password sharing;

• Content security;

• Geographical restrictions;

• Removal of infringing material;

• Cooperation with takedown demands;

• Evidence preservation;

• Audit rights; and

• Termination after a security or piracy breach.

2. Counterfeit Goods

USTR also alleges that counterfeit products remain widely available in Vietnamese physical markets, tourist centers, e-commerce platforms, and livestream sales.

The concern reaches beyond luxury handbags and clothing.

Counterfeiting can affect:

• Food;

• Beverages;

• Milk;

• Supplements;

• Cosmetics;

• Pharmaceuticals;

• Medical devices;

• Automotive parts;

• Electronics;

• Batteries;

• Children’s products;

• Industrial components;

• Tools;

• Consumer goods; and

• Packaging.

Counterfeit products can create health and safety risks as well as trademark and revenue losses.

A counterfeit bearing a U.S. company’s brand may injure consumers, damage the brand’s reputation, and create confusion about whether the legitimate company is responsible.

Brand owners should monitor not only exact copies of their primary trademark, but also:

• Similar marks;

• Translated or transliterated names;

• Logos;

• Packaging;

• Product shapes;

• Labels;

• Domain names;

• Social-media accounts;

• Store names; and

• Marketplace listings.

3. Border Enforcement

USTR’s third principal concern involves Vietnamese customs enforcement.

Vietnamese customs authorities possess certain authority to suspend customs procedures involving suspected counterfeit or pirated goods, but USTR alleges that this authority has been used inconsistently and rarely.

USTR also objects to the reported lack of equivalent authority concerning some goods merely passing through Vietnam in transit.

This matters because Vietnam can function as:

• A manufacturing location;

• An assembly location;

• A processing center;

• A regional warehouse;

• A transshipment point; or

• An export gateway.

A counterfeit product may be manufactured elsewhere, moved through Vietnam, relabeled, repackaged, or combined with other merchandise before export.

U.S. companies should therefore determine where the merchandise was actually produced—not merely where it was shipped.

For importers, the issue intersects with:

• Country of origin;

• Transshipment;

• Customs valuation;

• Tariff classification;

• Section 301 duties;

• Antidumping and countervailing duties;

• Forced-labor compliance;

• Supplier identity; and

• Authenticity of documentation.

4. Unlicensed Software

USTR alleges that Vietnamese authorities have not conducted significant recent enforcement against the use of unlicensed software by corporate end users.

This issue directly affects software developers and licensors.

It also affects U.S. companies operating facilities or joint ventures in Vietnam.

A business may face exposure if its Vietnamese subsidiary, factory, contractor, or partner uses unlicensed:

• Operating systems;

• Design software;

• Engineering software;

• Enterprise resource planning systems;

• Cybersecurity programs;

• Accounting systems;

• Database software;

• Manufacturing software;

• Cloud tools; or

• Other commercial applications.

Unlicensed software creates several risks:

• Copyright infringement;

• Cybersecurity vulnerabilities;

• Malware;

• Loss of technical support;

• Inaccurate records;

• Contract breaches;

• Insurance problems;

• Reputational harm; and

• Inability to demonstrate compliance during due diligence.

A U.S. buyer acquiring a Vietnamese company or entering a joint venture should not assume that software shown on company computers is properly licensed.

Software entitlement should be reviewed as part of transaction due diligence.

5. Cable and Satellite Signal Theft

USTR’s fifth area of concern involves unauthorized decoding and use of cable and satellite signals.

Vietnam amended its IP legislation concerning certain encrypted satellite signals, but USTR alleges that corresponding criminal provisions remain incomplete and that cable-signal theft is not expressly addressed adequately.

The issue affects:

• Broadcasters;

• Sports leagues;

• Media companies;

• Satellite providers;

• Cable companies;

• Streaming services;

• Hotels;

• Restaurants;

• Entertainment venues; and

• Commercial distributors of programming.

A licensing agreement should identify the locations, devices, audience, transmission method, territory, and permitted uses.

A license for private residential viewing is not necessarily sufficient for a hotel, bar, theater, resort, or commercial event.

Vietnam Disputes the Implication That It Has Failed to Act

A balanced analysis must recognize Vietnam’s position.

Vietnam has stated that it remains committed to intellectual-property protection and enforcement and will continue constructive engagement with the United States.

Vietnam has amended its IP laws, participated in international IP treaties, conducted enforcement campaigns, pursued certain piracy cases, and taken steps toward specialized IP adjudication.

Vietnamese officials have asked the United States to evaluate those developments fairly.

The disagreement is therefore not simply whether Vietnam has any IP laws or has ever taken enforcement action.

The central questions are:

• Whether the legal remedies are sufficiently clear;

• Whether authorities use the available powers consistently;

• Whether penalties deter infringement;

• Whether civil and criminal enforcement is realistically available;

• Whether online enforcement reaches repeat offenders;

• Whether customs enforcement is effective;

• Whether reforms produce sustained rather than temporary results; and

• Whether U.S. rights holders receive fair market access.

Those questions will be examined during the Section 301 process.

Compliance With TRIPS May Not End the U.S. Inquiry

Vietnam is a member of the World Trade Organization and is subject to the Agreement on Trade-Related Aspects of Intellectual Property Rights.

It is also a member of the World Intellectual Property Organization and participates in several international IP systems.

But the Section 301 standard is not limited to determining whether Vietnam has violated a specific TRIPS obligation.

The U.S. statute permits USTR to examine whether a foreign country denies adequate and effective IP protection or fair and equitable market access even where the country may comply with particular obligations under TRIPS.

That distinction is important.

A country can have laws generally consistent with international minimum standards while U.S. authorities still contend that the practical enforcement environment is inadequate.

Whether any eventual U.S. tariff or non-tariff measure would create separate WTO questions would depend on the actual measure, its legal basis, and the surrounding circumstances.

That analysis cannot be completed before USTR announces what action, if any, it will take.

Why This Investigation Matters to “China-Plus-One” Strategies

Vietnam has been one of the principal beneficiaries of companies moving or diversifying production away from China.

But a successful diversification strategy must do more than identify a lower-tariff factory.

It should examine at least four separate issues.

Where Is the Product Actually Manufactured?

A Vietnamese supplier may purchase components, materials, or nearly finished goods from China.

Final assembly, packaging, testing, or minor processing in Vietnam may not necessarily create Vietnamese origin under U.S. customs law.

Who Owns the Factory?

The contracting supplier may be a trading company rather than the producer.

The actual factory may be owned by a Chinese, Vietnamese, or third-country parent company.

Ownership does not necessarily determine origin, but it can affect:

• Control;

• Supplier independence;

• Sanctions screening;

• export controls;

• Beneficial-ownership due diligence;

• Financial risk; and

• The ability to enforce a contract.

Who Owns the Intellectual Property?

A manufacturer may receive the buyer’s:

• Trademark;

• Product drawings;

• Packaging;

• Formula;

• Software;

• Mold;

• Prototype;

• Customer specifications;

• Manufacturing process; or

• Confidential pricing.

The agreement must state that the supplier receives only a limited right to use those materials for the authorized production.

What Happens to Excess Production?

Unauthorized factory overruns can enter local markets, e-commerce platforms, or third-country distribution channels.

The products may be genuine in the sense that they came from the approved factory, but unauthorized because they were produced or sold outside the buyer’s instructions.

The contract should address excess production, rejected goods, scrap, defective merchandise, labels, packaging, and destruction.

U.S. Rights Do Not Automatically Protect a Company in Vietnam

Intellectual-property rights are territorial.

A U.S. trademark or patent registration generally does not, by itself, create enforceable rights in Vietnam.

The U.S. Department of Commerce advises companies that their rights must be registered and enforced under Vietnamese law.[5]

Vietnam generally follows a first-to-file system for trademarks and patents.

That means the first qualified applicant may obtain priority even when another business used the mark or invention elsewhere first, subject to the applicable law and possible challenges.

A company should therefore consider Vietnamese protection before:

• Introducing its brand;

• Attending a trade show;

• Contacting factories;

• Sending samples;

• Advertising online;

• Appointing a distributor;

• Hiring employees;

• Disclosing an invention;

• Franchising;

• Licensing technology; or

• Launching an e-commerce store.

Waiting until a dispute begins may leave the company trying to cancel another party’s application rather than enforcing its own existing registration.

International Filing Systems Can Help—but They Are Not Automatic Worldwide Rights

Vietnam participates in international systems that can help applicants seek protection.

Trademark applicants may use the Madrid System to designate Vietnam as part of an international trademark application or registration.

Patent applicants may use the Patent Cooperation Treaty process before entering the applicable national phase.

These systems can simplify filing and administration.

They do not create one universal trademark or patent enforceable identically in every country.

The Vietnamese designation or national phase remains subject to applicable Vietnamese examination, deadlines, classifications, objections, fees, and enforcement procedures.

Businesses should select the filing route based on:

• Countries of commercial importance;

• Timing;

• Product launch;

• Existing applications;

• Budget;

• Enforcement strategy;

• Ownership structure; and

• The need to record licenses or assignments.

Copyright Protection Should Be Documented

Copyright generally arises without a mandatory registration formality, subject to applicable law and treaty obligations.

Nevertheless, the U.S. Department of Commerce recommends formal copyright recordation in Vietnam because it may provide useful evidence of ownership during a dispute.

Businesses should maintain clear records showing:

• The author or creator;

• Employment or contractor status;

• Date of creation;

• Ownership assignments;

• Source files;

• Versions;

• Publication history;

• Licenses;

• Notices; and

• Registration or recordation documents.

This is especially important for:

• Software;

• Websites;

• Advertising;

• Product photography;

• Packaging;

• Training materials;

• Architectural plans;

• Designs;

• Videos;

• Written content; and

• Digital courses.

Paying a contractor to create content does not always answer who owns every applicable right.

The contract should contain the necessary assignment or license language.

Trade Secrets Require Actual Protective Measures

A business cannot safely treat information as a trade secret merely by describing it as “confidential.”

The company should use reasonable protective measures appropriate to the information and transaction.

Those measures may include:

• Written confidentiality agreements;

• Access limitations;

• Password protection;

• Encryption;

• Document marking;

• Need-to-know access;

• Separate technical files;

• Employee obligations;

• Contractor obligations;

• Visitor controls;

• Device restrictions;

• Return or destruction requirements;

• Monitoring;

• Exit procedures; and

• Records of disclosure.

A manufacturer does not necessarily need access to the entire product formula, customer list, source code, or production process.

Information should be divided where commercially practical.

Manufacturing Agreements Need Vietnam-Specific Protection

A standard U.S. purchase order is rarely sufficient for a high-risk international manufacturing relationship.

The agreement should address the complete business process.

Ownership of Intellectual Property

The agreement should identify ownership of:

• Trademarks;

• Copyrights;

• Patents;

• Designs;

• Tooling;

• Molds;

• Dies;

• Specifications;

• Software;

• Packaging;

• Improvements;

• Derivative works; and

• Production data.

Limited License to the Factory

The factory’s right to use the buyer’s intellectual property should be:

• Nonexclusive;

• Nontransferable;

• Limited to authorized production;

• Limited to the contract term;

• Limited to approved facilities;

• Prohibited from use for other customers; and

• Terminable upon breach.

No Unauthorized Subcontracting

The supplier should not transfer production to another facility without written approval.

The contract should require disclosure of:

• Factory name;

• Factory address;

• Ownership;

• Subcontractors;

• Material suppliers where appropriate;

• Production changes; and

• Any relocation.

Control of Tooling

The agreement should state:

• Who paid for the tooling;

• Who owns it;

• Where it may be stored;

• Whether it may be copied;

• Who insures it;

• Whether it may be moved;

• Whether the buyer may inspect it;

• What happens after termination; and

• How it must be returned or destroyed.

Overruns and Rejected Goods

The agreement should prohibit unauthorized production and sale.

It should establish procedures for:

• Excess goods;

• Defective products;

• Rejected products;

• Samples;

• Scrap;

• Labels;

• Packaging;

• Components; and

• Destruction verification.

Quality Control

Quality provisions should include:

• Technical specifications;

• Approved samples;

• Testing;

• Inspection;

• Regulatory standards;

• Product safety;

• Corrective action;

• Recall cooperation;

• Warranties; and

• Responsibility for nonconforming goods.

Enforcement Cooperation

The supplier should cooperate if counterfeit or unauthorized goods appear in the market.

That may include providing:

• Production records;

• Employee information;

• Shipment records;

• Material records;

• Evidence;

• Witness statements;

• Access to facilities; and

• Assistance with government authorities.

Distribution Agreements Create Different Risks

A distributor generally receives greater market access and customer information than a manufacturer.

The agreement should address:

• Territory;

• Channels;

• E-commerce;

• Approved accounts;

• Subdistributors;

• Advertising;

• Trademark use;

• Domain names;

• Social-media accounts;

• Product registration;

• Customer ownership;

• Pricing restrictions where lawful;

• Minimum purchases;

• Sales reporting;

• Inventory;

• Returns;

• Termination; and

• Post-termination brand use.

A distributor should not register the U.S. company’s trademark, company name, domain name, product approval, or social-media account in its own name without express authorization and a clear transfer mechanism.

E-Commerce Requires Continuous Monitoring

Vietnam’s e-commerce market has expanded rapidly, with significant use of mobile devices, online marketplaces, and livestream selling.[6]

That creates opportunities for U.S. companies.

It also makes infringement faster and less visible.

Counterfeit sellers may:

• Open and close accounts rapidly;

• Use altered logos;

• Sell through livestreams;

• Move customers to private messaging;

• Use affiliates;

• Create mirror websites;

• Manipulate product images;

• Use the genuine company’s reviews;

• Register confusing domain names; or

• Ship products from several locations.

A brand-protection plan may require:

• Marketplace monitoring;

• Domain-name monitoring;

• Test purchases;

• Seller identification;

• Evidence preservation;

• Takedown procedures;

• Platform engagement;

• Customs coordination;

• Local enforcement; and

• Consumer education.

Section 301 Tariffs Could Affect Existing Contracts

A future tariff would create immediate questions between buyers and sellers.

Who Pays the New Duty?

The contract should identify whether the price includes:

• Existing duties;

• New Section 301 duties;

• Customs fees;

• Antidumping duties;

• Countervailing duties;

• Tariff surcharges; and

• Duties arising from incorrect origin information.

Does the Price Automatically Change?

A supplier may argue that the buyer must accept an increase.

The buyer may argue that the price was fixed.

A tariff-adjustment clause should address:

• Supporting documentation;

• Effective date;

• Existing purchase orders;

• Goods already in production;

• Caps;

• Cost mitigation;

• Decreases;

• Refunds;

• Renegotiation; and

• Termination.

Does Force Majeure Apply?

A new tariff ordinarily makes a transaction more expensive rather than legally impossible.

Whether it excuses performance depends on the contract and governing law.

Businesses should not assume that a general reference to government action resolves the issue.

Can Production Move?

The buyer may want the right to transfer production if a Vietnam-specific tariff materially changes the economics.

The supplier may seek compensation for raw materials, tooling, reserved capacity, or finished inventory.

Those consequences should be addressed before a tariff is imposed.

Businesses Should Preserve Evidence of Commercial Harm

USTR’s investigation asks whether Vietnamese practices burden U.S. commerce and the nature and amount of that burden.

Businesses experiencing IP-related harm should maintain records of:

• Lost sales;

• Counterfeit listings;

• Pirated downloads;

• Unauthorized software use;

• Enforcement costs;

• Investigation costs;

• Customer confusion;

• Product-safety complaints;

• Distributor losses;

• Price erosion;

• Brand damage;

• Unpaid royalties;

• Border failures; and

• Unsuccessful enforcement attempts.

Even when the public-comment deadline has passed, well-maintained evidence remains important for:

• Bilateral advocacy;

• Enforcement actions;

• Contract claims;

• Insurance claims;

• Internal risk assessment; and

• Future government proceedings.

Ten Steps U.S. Businesses Should Take Now

1. Identify Vietnam-Dependent Operations

List Vietnamese suppliers, factories, distributors, software users, licensees, developers, and service providers.

2. Identify the Intellectual Property Being Shared

Include trademarks, designs, code, data, formulas, packaging, tooling, customer information, and technical specifications.

3. Confirm Vietnamese Registrations

Determine whether trademarks, patents, and designs are properly filed in the correct owner’s name and classes.

4. Review Copyright Ownership

Confirm that employees and contractors executed the necessary ownership assignments or licenses.

5. Map Trade Secrets

Identify which information is truly confidential and what protective measures are actually being used.

6. Inspect Manufacturing Contracts

Review ownership, licenses, subcontracting, overruns, tooling, quality, audits, confidentiality, enforcement, and termination.

7. Verify the Actual Factory and Origin

Determine where each production step occurs and whether Chinese or other third-country inputs affect customs origin or tariff exposure.

8. Review Tariff Clauses

Prepare for the possibility of a Vietnam-specific Section 301 action without treating it as final.

9. Monitor Online Markets

Search for counterfeit products, unauthorized distributors, domain names, and pirated content before the infringement becomes widespread.

10. Develop an Exit and Transition Plan

Determine how the company would retrieve tooling, data, inventory, registrations, customer records, and production files if the relationship ends.

How TEIL Firms Can Help

The Vietnam investigation sits directly at the intersection of intellectual property, international contracts, customs, and trade policy.

A company may need to determine whether its trademark is protected before manufacturing begins. An importer may need to prepare for possible Section 301 duties. A brand owner may need a strategy for counterfeit goods sold through online marketplaces. A software company may need licensing and audit protections. A manufacturer may need to prevent unauthorized subcontracting or factory overruns. A company leaving China may need to confirm that its new Vietnam structure actually changes customs origin and reduces risk.

The Evans International Law Firms, LLC—TEIL Firms—helps U.S. and international businesses protect the intangible assets and contractual relationships that make global trade possible.

Our Vietnam and international business services include:

• Vietnam intellectual-property strategy;

• Trademark, copyright, patent, and design coordination;

• International trademark portfolio planning;

• Trade-secret and confidential-information protection;

• International manufacturing agreements;

• Tooling, mold, and product-development agreements;

• Distributor, reseller, franchise, and licensing agreements;

• Software and technology licensing;

• E-commerce and counterfeit-response planning;

• Supplier and factory due diligence;

• Country-of-origin and transshipment issue spotting;

• Section 301 and tariff-risk analysis;

• Tariff, change-in-law, and price-adjustment clauses;

• Contract termination and production-transition planning;

• International dispute-resolution provisions; and

• China-plus-one supply-chain planning.

A targeted Vietnam IP and Trade Risk Review can help determine:

• Whether your intellectual property is protected in Vietnam;

• Whether registrations are held in the correct name;

• What information your factory or distributor can use;

• Whether contracts prohibit unauthorized production and subcontracting;

• Whether tooling, molds, packaging, and improvements belong to your company;

• Whether Vietnamese origin is legally supportable;

• Who bears the risk of a future Section 301 tariff;

• Whether your online brand is being monitored;

• What records should be preserved; and

• How the company can exit the relationship without losing control of its product or brand.

Businesses should complete that review before disclosing product plans, transferring tooling, granting exclusivity, sending source code, approving packaging, or building an entire supply chain around one Vietnamese partner.

Conclusion

Vietnam remains an important manufacturing base, technology market, and commercial partner for U.S. companies.

The Section 301 investigation does not change that fact.

It does, however, demonstrate why a supply-chain strategy based only on labor costs and tariff rates is incomplete.

A lower-cost manufacturing location can become expensive if:

• The company loses its trademark;

• The factory sells unauthorized products;

• A distributor registers the brand;

• Software is used without authorization;

• trade secrets are disclosed;

• counterfeits spread online;

• customs origin cannot be proven;

• a new tariff is imposed; or

• the contract cannot be enforced.

The outcome of the USTR investigation remains uncertain.

Vietnam may implement reforms. The countries may reach a negotiated resolution. USTR may impose tariffs or other measures. The investigation may end without a significant trade action.

U.S. companies cannot control that government process.

They can control whether they enter the next stage of U.S.–Vietnam trade with properly registered intellectual property, carefully drafted contracts, verified factories, documented customs positions, and a realistic plan for enforcement and transition.

Diversification should reduce business risk.

It should not merely move the same unprotected assets from one foreign factory to another.

This article is provided for general informational purposes and does not constitute legal advice. The Section 301 investigation remains pending. Any responsive tariff or non-tariff action, product scope, rate, and effective date cannot presently be confirmed. Intellectual-property rights, customs origin, contracts, and enforcement options depend on the specific parties, products, jurisdictions, and facts.