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

February 1, 2019

CPTPP Brings Significant and Effective Changes to Vietnam’s IP Landscape

Subscribe to Updates
Managing Intellectual Property

Following the United States’ high-profile withdrawal from the Trans-Pacific Partnership (TPP) in 2017, the remaining members agreed to move forward with a revised trade agreement called the Comprehensive and Progressive Agreement for Trans-Pacific Partnership, or CPTPP. The CPTPP came into force on 30 December 2018 between the first six signatories, Australia, Canada, Japan, Mexico, New Zealand, and Singapore. Vietnam, the seventh country to ratify the new agreement, officially joined the CPTPP on 14 January 2019.

The CPTPP introduces a number of significant changes in Vietnam from an intellectual property perspective, some of which took immediate effect on 14 January 2019. (Per Article 5.3 of Vietnam’s Law on Intellectual Property as well as other laws such as the Law on Treaties of 2016, the CPTPP, as an international treaty, prevails over domestic IP law.) We briefly set out such changes below.

Recordal of Trademark License

The CPTPP eliminates the requirement for recording (registering) a trademark license to establish the validity of such license. Under Article 148 of Vietnam’s IP Law, such recordal serves as a prerequisite for the license to be valid against a third party. However, with the effectiveness of CPTPP, such requirement under the domestic law will no longer exist. The CPTPP also expressly indicates that the use of a trademark by its licensee shall inure to the benefit of the trademark owner.

Domain Name Dispute Resolution

Currently, domain name dispute resolution is a bone of contention between the relevant authorities. The Ministry of Science and Technology (MOST), which administers IP matters, and the Ministry of Information and Communication (MIC), which administers internet matters, have thus far been unable to reach an agreement to set up effective regimes for resolving domain name disputes involving country code top-level domains (ccTLD). The CPTPP requires Vietnam to set up an effective regime, which could be modeled after the UDRP proceedings.

Though this requirement has taken force, brand owners should not expect any immediate change. Rather, they must wait until Vietnam rolls out an amended version of the IP Law (particularly Article 130.1(d) on acts of unfair competition). While the timeline for such amended law is uncertain, it is expected to be considered in May 2019 when the National Assembly convenes. Hopefully, such amendment will bridge the gaps between MOST and the MIC, and fix the current loopholes. Complainants would then be able to easily freeze domain names amid the proceedings, call for ex parte proceedings, and retrieve pirated domain names, including domain names that have no active websites.

Grace Period for Patent Novelty

Pursuant to Article 18.38 of the IP Chapter of the CPTPP, Vietnam must extend the exceptions for determining novelty when assessing the patentability of an invention. Particularly, an invention will still be considered novel in the case of public disclosure provided that:

  • – the applicant, or another entity that has obtained the information from the applicant, makes the disclosure, and
  • – the disclosure occurs no more than 12 months prior to the filing date.

To codify this regulation into the domestic laws, Vietnam must amend Article 60 of the IP Law.

Damages

The CPTPP provides further details to calculate damages in the case of IP infringement, which could include the lost profits, the value of the infringed goods/services, the suggested retail price, and the infringer’s profits generated from the infringement (in the context of copyright infringement and trademark counterfeiting).

The pact also requires Vietnam to either pinpoint statutory damages (pre-established damages) or provide for punitive damages. Currently, no punitive damages are available in Vietnam. As far as statutory damages, Vietnam claims to provide the damages under Article 205.1(c) of the IP Law, which are capped at VND 500 million. However, in fact, this provision has never been effective in practice. The determination of the amount under this provision still largely depends on the court’s discretion. With the lack of a pre-established amount per infringement or infringing goods, and on balance of convenience, courts often refuse to apply the provision.

Other Changes

Some other regulations in the CPTPP make immediate changes to the IP landscape. Exhaustion of rights will now expressly apply to copyright and related rights, hence the legality of parallel imports of copyrighted works. The pact also affords protection to the translation or transliteration of geographical indications.

The CPTPP also brings about other significant changes to IP enforcement (especially criminal action and the customs seizure of exports and goods in transit), patent linkage, and data exclusivity. However, unlike the changes mentioned above, the treaty allows a corresponding transition period for Vietnam to adopt such changes.

With these changes, the CPTPP indeed lays down a higher standard for IP protection, which could both pose a challenge and open up an opportunity for Vietnam. IP is consistently considered an engine for economic growth in Industry 4.0. Thus, Vietnam should make the most use of the opportunity which the CPTPP affords to drive the economy forward.

Download Full Article
Related Professionals

Practices

Intellectual Property

Location

RELATED INSIGHTS​ 

July 24, 2026
As food innovation continues to accelerate, manufacturers are increasingly introducing ingredients derived from new sources, produced using novel technologies, or lacking a significant history of human consumption. While these innovations create new opportunities for the food industry, they also raise important questions regarding consumer safety. For this reason, many jurisdictions, including Thailand, the European Union, Australia and New Zealand, Canada, and Singapore, require a premarket safety assessment for novel food ingredients before they can be placed on the market. The objective of this assessment is to ensure that each ingredient is safe for its intended use and level of consumption, does not present toxicological, allergenic, microbiological, or nutritional concerns, and will not mislead consumers. Scientific authorities typically evaluate the ingredient’s identity, manufacturing process, composition, specifications, anticipated dietary exposure, toxicological information, nutritional impact, and history of use before determining whether it can be marketed. Against this background, the Thai Food and Drug Administration (FDA) recently took an important step toward improving regulatory transparency by publishing, for the first time, a consolidated public list of substances that have successfully completed the Thai FDA’s safety assessment process, including substances determined to be novel foods and those determined not to fall within the novel food category. The list identifies the approved substances, the corresponding manufacturers or importers, approval dates, and the approved conditions of use. Although the publication does not change the existing legal framework governing novel food approvals, it provides businesses with greater visibility into the Thai FDA’s regulatory precedents and the types of substances that have previously been accepted through the safety assessment process. The full announcement is available on the Thai FDA’s website. As the list is now publicly available, it also provides useful insight into the types of substances that have successfully completed the Thai FDA’s safety assessment process.
Read More
July 24, 2026
Indonesia has updated its fee framework for intellectual property (IP)-related government services, with implications for IP owners, licensees, lenders, digital platforms, and businesses operating in the country. Government Regulation No. 30 of 2026 on Types and Tariffs of Non-Tax State Revenue Applicable to the Ministry of Law (GR 30/2026) was promulgated on July 2, 2026, and will take effect on August 1, 2026. Key Takeaways GR 30/2026, which replaces the relevant IP service fees under Government Regulation No. 45 of 2024, reorganizes the fee schedule into separate categories for copyright, industrial designs, patents, layout designs of integrated circuits, trade secrets, trademarks, geographical indications, IP enforcement, and other categories. The most commercially relevant changes include a new copyright recordation tariff exemption for songs and music, higher fees for several trademark and geographical indication services, new IP enforcement service fees, and a new fee type for registration of fiduciary security over IP rights objects. In addition, this is the first major update for trademark fees in approximately 10 years. GR 30/2026 is significant not only as a fee update but also as a further indication of Indonesia’s increasing recognition of IP as a financeable commercial asset. By expressly assigning fees to the registration of fiduciary security over IP rights objects, the regulation places IP-backed collateral filings within the Ministry of Law’s administrative service framework. While GR 30/2026 does not create a new secured-transactions regime, this development is relevant for lenders, borrowers, and IP owners structuring financing arrangements secured by trademarks, patents, copyrights, industrial designs, or other registrable IP rights in Indonesia. Copyright: New Fee Exemption for Songs and Music Recordation For copyright, GR 30/2026 creates a fee-exempt category for recordation of works or related-rights products for songs or music, while maintaining a separate category for other works and related-rights products. It
Read More
July 21, 2026
Thailand’s Ministry of Digital Economy and Society (MDES) published a notification establishing an expedited court-ordered takedown mechanism for online content in cases of “urgent necessity.” The notification, which was issued on July 17, 2026, under the Computer Crime Act B.E. 2550 (2007), as amended, took effect the following day. It significantly expands the categories of content subject to rapid government-initiated removal. Content Categories Subject to Takedown The notification defines “urgent necessity” (section 20, paragraph 5, of the Computer Crime Act) as circumstances where any delay in suppressing computer data may impact national security, religion, the monarchy, good morals, social culture, or public order. In this regard, it establishes four broad categories of content: Computer Crime Act offenses. National security offenses. IP and other criminal offenses, where it is contrary to public order or good morals and a competent officer has requested its suppression. Content contrary to public order or good morals, a broad residual category encompassing 14 subcategories approved by the Computer Data Screening Committee. The fourth category is the most expansive. Its 14 subcategories include: Content defaming, mocking, satirizing, or devaluing the monarchy. Online gambling advertising or facilitation. Offering illegal firearms for sale. Offering baraku (hookah) products or e-cigarettes for sale. Offering cannabis inflorescences or processed cannabis products for sale. Advertising or soliciting prostitution. Content inciting violence, hatred, or social division. Unauthorized overseas employment advertising. Offering boiled kratom juice for sale. Online sale or advertising of alcoholic beverages. Content satirizing or degrading Buddhism. Money lending at interest rates exceeding legally prescribed limits. Advertising or disseminating information about surrogacy services. Forgery of documents, cards, or official documents. Enforcement Procedure In cases of urgent necessity, a competent official assigned by the MDES permanent secretary must file a petition with supporting evidence to the court with jurisdiction, requesting an order to
Read More
July 15, 2026
Ambush marketing refers to a strategy in which a business associates itself with an event, campaign, or brand without paying for official sponsorship rights. The tactic is most visible in sports, concerts, and festivals, where official sponsors have invested substantially for exclusivity. Ambush marketers may use suggestive wording, event-themed imagery, athlete endorsements, venue-adjacent promotions, or social media campaigns implying a commercial connection with the event. Common Forms of Ambush Marketing Ambush marketing typically takes one of the following forms: Direct ambushing: using event names, logos, or mascots suggesting authorization Coattail ambushing: sponsoring an athlete or broadcaster connected with the event Subtle ambushing: themed advertising, venue-adjacent campaigns, or similar visual cues The legal analysis in each case turns on whether the marketing crosses from permissible event-based advertising into infringement, passing off, deception, or wrongful exploitation of goodwill, and the risk assessment is necessarily fact-specific. Thailand has no dedicated ambush marketing statute, so legality depends on execution. A campaign that merely comments on a public event may be permissible, but one that uses protected marks, creates consumer confusion, misrepresents sponsorship status, or makes unsubstantiated claims may trigger liability under various Thai laws, as laid out below. Ambush Marketing and Thailand’s Trademark Act The Trademark Act B.E. 2534 (1991) is the primary tool for addressing campaigns that use registered trademarks, event names, logos, mascots, or confusingly similar signs. The law gives registered trademark owners the exclusive right to use their mark for registered goods, and infringement risk arises when a nonsponsor uses an event mark or a confusingly similar sign in advertising. Even referential or playful use may create liability if it causes public confusion as to sponsorship or commercial connection. The law also preserves passing-off claims for unregistered marks. This matters because event names, taglines, or mascots may not always be
Read More