You are using an outdated browser and your browsing experience will not be optimal. Please update to the latest version of Microsoft Edge, Google Chrome or Mozilla Firefox. Install Microsoft Edge

June 19, 2019

Vietnam’s IP Law Amended to Comply with CPTPP

Subscribe to Updates

On June 14, 2019, the National Assembly of Vietnam ratified a law amending and supplementing the Law on Insurance Business and the Law Intellectual Property (IP Law), with the primary purpose being to bring the existing laws in line with the terms of the Comprehensive and Progressive Agreement for Trans-Pacific Partnership (CPTPP), which came into effect in Vietnam on January 14, 2019. The key changes in the amended IP Law are presented below.

Patents

Grace period applicable to utility patents

Under the amended IP Law, an invention will not be considered to lack novelty or an inventive step due to public disclosure if: (i) such public disclosure is made by the patent applicant or by a person that obtained the information directly or indirectly from the patent applicant; and (ii) the patent application is filed within 12 months from the date of public disclosure.

This exception does not apply to circumstances where an invention is disclosed in a patent application or granted patent which is made available to the public or published by a patent office, unless erroneously published or unless the application was filed without the consent of the inventor or their successor in title, by a third person who obtained the information directly or indirectly from the inventor.

Previously, the grace period for public disclosure was much shorter, just six months from the date of disclosure, and applied to only a limited number of circumstances.

Geographical Indications

Determination of whether a term is the common name of goods

Although common names of goods were already ineligible for protection as geographical indications under the previous IP Law, there were no details on the method or criteria for determining whether a term was a common name. Under the amended IP Law, this will now be based on the awareness/perception of the relevant Vietnamese consumers.

Third-party opposition to geographical indication applications

Under the amended IP Law, a geographical indication is considered identical or similar to a registered trademark, or a pending trademark under an earlier application, when the use of such geographical indication is likely to cause confusion (instead of “will cause confusion” under the previous IP Law) as to the origin of the prior trademark. This amendment not only extends the protection of a registered trademark, but also provides another ground for opposition to a geographical indication application, by adding pending trademarks under earlier applications.

Recognition and protection of geographical indications under international agreements

The amended IP Law adds provisions concerning the protection and recognition of geographical indications under international agreements, which were not clearly mentioned in the previous law. Under the amended IP Law, rights to geographical indications can be established under international agreements to which Vietnam is a contracting party, without the need to undergo a separate registration procedure in Vietnam. Accordingly, for a request for recognition and protection of a geographical indication under international agreements, the procedure for publication, opposition, assessment of registrability and determination of the scope of protection for that geographical indication will be implemented similarly to the procedures applied for an application for geographical indication registration filed before the NOIP.

Trademarks

Electronic filing system

In addition to the existing paper filing system, applications for IP protection under the amended IP Law can be filed via an electronic application system managed by the NOIP. In fact, although there were no specific provisions concerning electronic filing in the previous law, the NOIP has been using the electronic application system for trademarks and other IP rights since 2017.

Recordal of trademark license agreements

Under the amended IP Law, a license agreement is valid even without recordal at the NOIP, as previously required. It should be noted that such exemption is only available for trademark license agreements. Licenses for other IP rights must still be recorded with the NOIP to be valid.

Use of trademark by licensee

Under the amended IP Law, the use of a trademark by a licensee constitutes use of mark by the trademark holder (for defense against non-use cancellation, for example). This was not clearly stated in the previous law.

Enforcement of IP Rights

Grounds for claiming compensation caused by IP infringement

Under the amended IP Law, it is possible for a holder of IP rights to claim compensation for infringement on any legal basis which the rights holder is able to prove. Under the CPTPP, such determination basis could include lost profits, the value of the infringed goods or services measured by the market price or the suggested retail price, or the infringer’s profits generated from the infringement. This is much more flexible than the previous law, which allowed only certain methods/approaches for calculating damages.

Attorney’s fees

In IP lawsuits, both the plaintiff and the defendant are entitled under the amended IP Law to request the court to force the other party to pay reasonable attorney’s fees. This was previously only available to the plaintiff. The defendant may request attorney’s fees if it is concluded to have not committed an IP infringement.

Abuse of IP rights

To comply with the CPTPP, a new provision concerning compensation for the abuse of IP rights is included under the amended IP Law. In particular, any parties suffering from damages caused by the abuse of IP rights by the rights holder are entitled to request the court to force such rights holder to compensate for the damages, including but not limited to reasonable attorney’s fees. The basis for determining the abuse of IP rights, however, remains vague.

Obligations of customs to provide information on suspected infringing goods

Under the amended IP Law, within 30 days from the issuance date of a decision on suspending customs procedures, the customs agency must provide the rights holder with information on the name and address of the shipper, exporter, consignee, or importer; and a description of the goods, quantity of goods, and country of origin of the goods (if known). Previously, customs was only obliged to provide information to IP rights holders if there was a request for suspension and inspection.

Effectiveness

The amended IP Law will take retroactive effect from January 14, 2019 (i.e., the date of entry into force of CPTPP in Vietnam). Accordingly, provisions under the amended IP Law will apply to:

  • Applications for industrial property rights submitted after January 14, 2019;
  • Requests for invalidation of registered patents, utility models and geographical indications submitted after January 14, 2019;
  • Procedures for cancellation of registered trademarks implemented after January 14, 2019; and
  • Procedures for enforcement of IP rights as requested from January 14, 2019 onwards.

With these changes, Vietnam’s IP Law is increasingly in line with the requirements set out under the CPTPP. However, there are still some matters which have not yet been fully addressed, such as the registration of sound/scent marks and the recognition of well-known trademarks. Further amendment and supplementation of IP legislation is expected soon.

Practices

Intellectual Property

Location

RELATED INSIGHTS​ 

August 20, 2026
As part of its membership in Lex Mundi, Tilleke & Gibbins has released the latest edition of its Guide to Doing Business in Thailand, providing an overview of the legal, regulatory, and commercial considerations for companies establishing or expanding operations in Thailand. The 2026 edition offers practical insight into the country’s business environment, investment framework, and operational requirements. The guide covers a wide range of topics relevant to foreign and domestic investors, including: Investment incentives and promotion schemes Financial facilities and banking regulations Exchange controls and money transfers Import and export regulations Business structures and incorporation options Requirements for establishing a business Operational and compliance considerations Business cessation and insolvency procedures Employment and labor laws Taxation Immigration and visa requirements Prepared by Tilleke & Gibbins lawyers across multiple practice areas, the publication outlines key aspects of doing business in Thailand, including foreign investment restrictions, regulatory compliance obligations, corporate structures, employment requirements, and recent legal and economic developments affecting investors. The publication forms part of Lex Mundi’s Country Guides series, a global collection of jurisdiction-specific reference materials prepared by member firms around the world. Together, these guides help companies evaluate opportunities, compare regulatory environments, and plan international business activities across multiple markets. The full Guide to Doing Business in Thailand 2026 is available through the button below.
Read More
August 13, 2026
Modern agricultural machinery is no longer purely mechanical but instead technology dependent. Modern tractors, harvesters, and other farm equipment increasingly incorporate embedded software, electronic control units, sensors, and digital diagnostic systems. While such technologies enhance efficiency, productivity, and precision farming, they also affect the manner of equipment repair and maintenance. As a result, farmers and independent repair providers may have little practical choice but to rely on authorized dealers, even for routine maintenance and repairs. Section 36 of Thailand’s Patent Act reflects the principle that the authorized sale of a patented invention usually exhausts the exclusive right of the patent owner over the specific product. This means that upon legal sale of the patented product, it can typically be used or resold without further authorization from the patent holder. This principle is relatively straightforward when applied to traditional mechanical equipment. Ownership of a machine ordinarily carries with it the practical ability to diagnose faults, replace worn parts, and restore the equipment to working order. Modern agricultural machinery, however, increasingly depends on embedded software, proprietary diagnostic systems, firmware updates, and other digital resources that may remain under the control of the manufacturer or patent holder. This tension lies within the “right to repair” debate. In the United States, on July 8, 2026, the Federal Trade Commission and five states announced a settlement with Deere & Company resolving allegations that Deere had unlawfully restricted farmers’ and independent repair providers’ ability to repair their equipment. Under the terms of the settlement, for the next ten years, Deere must provide repair resources, including software capabilities, on terms equivalent to those provided to authorized dealers. The Deere settlement highlights that the nature of ownership is changing, but legal concepts have not kept pace. Traditional patent-law concepts, including patent exhaustion, were developed with physical products
Read More
August 10, 2026
Thailand has finalized its social media KYC (“know your customer”) rules under Notification of the Electronic Transactions Commission on Measures to Prevent Technological Crimes for Social Media Service Providers (No. 2), which was published in the Government Gazette on May 5, 2026, and will take effect on November 1, 2026. While an early draft of the notification proposed requiring social media platforms to arrange identification of every user account, the final notification is significantly more targeted, focusing on paid online advertising and advertiser identity verification. Though the regulatory initiative primarily aims to combat online fraud and technology-related crimes, it also has important consequences for intellectual property enforcement, because the verified platform records that will be generated under the new requirements can help IP rights holders to identify anonymous online infringers. Key Regulatory Mandates The notification requires social media service providers to verify the identity of advertisers before their paid advertisements are published and disseminated in Thailand through social media, regardless of whether the advertising fees come from the advertisers or third parties. Verification of an advertiser is valid for one year, after which verification would have to be performed again before the platform could publish additional paid advertisements from the advertiser. Permitted verification methods are specified under the notification. A platform may verify an advertiser by checking identity evidence and confirming the connection between the advertiser and that identity evidence, with the notification giving facial comparison against certain government-issued identity documents as an example. Alternatively, platforms may verify advertisers through a digital identity verification and authentication system with an identity-proofing assurance level not lower than the level prescribed by Thailand’s Electronic Transactions Commission. The notification further requires platforms to retain only the advertiser’s information necessary to identify the advertiser, beginning from the start of the advertising activity and for
Read More
August 6, 2026
Introduction: A Trademark Paradox in Sustainable Packaging Walk into any Thai supermarket, and the label-free water bottle is no longer a novelty. Thailand’s packaging market, valued at approximately USD 15.68 billion in 2025, is shifting toward minimalist, plastic-light designs as ESG pressures reshape how brands present their products. The country generated roughly 5.68 million tons of plastic waste in 2021, with a recycling rate of only 19 percent, and regulators are now considering rules that would allow label-free bottled water relying on embossing, laser printing, or QR codes instead of wrap-around labels. As packaging itself becomes the brand identifier, a paradox emerges: designs built to say the least often struggle hardest for protection under Thai intellectual property law. The Trademark Barrier: When Shape Is Not Enough Section 7, paragraph 2(10) of the Thai Trademark Act deems a shape distinctive only if it is not the natural form of the goods, is not necessary to achieve a technical result, and does not add value to the goods. The Department of Intellectual Property’s 2022 examination guidelines apply this test conservatively, as the following examples illustrate. A plain water bottle relying on subtle contours to signal its brand is typically read as just another bottle, not a source identifier. Acquired distinctiveness offers a theoretical escape route, but it demands extensive evidence of sales, advertising, and consumer recognition—an especially heavy burden for new entrants whose minimalist packaging has not yet achieved market prominence. The result is a structural bias against precisely the design innovation that sustainability goals are meant to encourage. Design Patents: A Partial, Imperfect Substitute Design patent protection, covering a product’s shape, configuration, or ornamentation, appears to offer an alternative route. In practice, it is constrained by the same forces driving the minimalist trend. Because many brands converge on similar solutions—clear
Read More