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 13, 2026
When Decree No. 186/2026/ND-CP (Decree 186) takes effect on July 15, 2026, it will introduce the most significant reform of Vietnam’s administrative IP enforcement framework since Decree 99/2013/ND-CP was issued in 2013. These changes are expected to make administrative enforcement faster, more accessible, and better suited to the realities of modern IP disputes. Below are the principal reforms and their practical implications for rights holders and enforcement practitioners. The End of Notarization and Consular Legalization Among the most welcome procedural changes is the abolition of the notarization and consular legalization requirement for powers of attorney (POA) submitted in administrative enforcement proceedings. Under the previous regime, foreign rights holders were generally required to execute a POA, then have it notarized and consular legalized (if seeking customs recordal). In practice, this process frequently delayed enforcement by four to eight weeks, often long enough for infringing goods to disappear before authorities could intervene. Decree 186 removes this bottleneck, now requiring only an original or certified copy of the POA. If the document is in a foreign language, a Vietnamese translation is sufficient, provided it is certified by a competent authority or confirmed by the authorized Vietnamese IP representative. Consular legalization and notarization are no longer required. For rights holders, the practical impact is substantial. Administrative enforcement files that previously took weeks to prepare can now be completed in a matter of days, allowing much faster responses in time-sensitive matters such as warehouse raids, border interventions, and trade-fair enforcement. The decree also introduces a useful administrative simplification. Where an original POA has already been submitted to the same enforcement authority and remains valid, applicants may rely on a copy of that earlier submission by identifying the previous case file. This eliminates unnecessary duplication for rights holders pursuing multiple enforcement actions before the same
Read More
July 9, 2026
Recycling, upcycling, and refill-packaging models are now widely promoted as ways to reduce waste, lower carbon emissions, and respond to consumer demand for sustainable products. However, complications arise when these environmentally driven trends intersect with intellectual property law—particularly where reused or altered packaging continues to display third parties’ registered trademarks. Adding to this complexity, Thailand’s draft Sustainable Packaging Management Act aims to introduce new environmental compliance obligations that businesses must navigate alongside existing trademark concerns. Recycling and upcycling packaging may infringe trademark rights, especially in cases not protected by the first-sale doctrine—the principle that a trademark owner’s rights over a particular mark-bearing product end once the owner first sells it. Furthermore, even refill packaging carries legal risk due to specific statutory prohibitions under Thai law. Compounding these challenges, the draft Sustainable Packaging Management Act will impose extended producer responsibility (EPR) obligations on manufacturers and brand owners, requiring them to manage packaging throughout its lifecycle. These overlapping legal frameworks could deter manufacturers from pursuing ESG-aligned business models unless businesses understand how to navigate both trademark and environmental requirements. Under Thai law, this issue remains uncertain because the Trademark Act does not expressly codify the first sale doctrine, also known as the exhaustion of trademark rights. Generally, this doctrine provides that once a trademark owner has lawfully sold goods bearing its trademark, the owner’s right to control further resale of those particular goods is exhausted. The rationale is that the owner has already received commercial benefit from the first authorized sale; therefore, the purchaser should be free to resell or otherwise dispose of the goods. Although the doctrine is not expressly codified in the Trademark Act, Thai courts have recognized it in relation to genuine goods and parallel imports, as seen in a Supreme Court Judgment No. 2817/2543 in which the
Read More
July 6, 2026
Indonesia’s regulation on reporting online intellectual property (IP) infringement provides comprehensive procedural guidance for IP rights holders and their licensees in reporting online infringement complaints. Issued in December 2025 by the Ministry of Law as Regulation No. 47 of 2025 regarding Handling of Intellectual Property Infringement Reports in Electronic Systems, this regulation covers all types of IP rights. It also specifies documentation when reporting infringement, and lays out the procedures for examination, verification, and enforcement actions. Submission of Complaints Complainants may submit reports through the online system of the Directorate General of Intellectual Property (DGIP) or in person at the DGIP office. Complaints may also be filed through an authorized proxy. Under the regulation, complainants are required to provide the following information and documents: Personal details of the complainant; Brief description of the protected work or subject matter (i.e., type of IP and name or address of the infringing website, portal, account, or application, or a link to the location of the infringing content); Complete description of the alleged infringement; Certificate of registration or recordal of the relevant IP; Recordal of IP license agreement, if any; and Other supporting evidence. Verification and Examination Process Upon receiving a complaint, the responsible formality officer may request clarification or additional supporting documents. In the latter case, the complainant must then submit the necessary administrative documents within 14 days of the notification date. Once the documentation is deemed complete and sufficient, the case will be formally registered. Subsequently, the DGIP will establish a verification team to handle online IP violations, which will include the Civil Servant Investigator (PPNS), the Ministry of Communication and Digital Affairs, experts with relevant expertise in IP, and representatives from related associations such as AVISI (Indonesian Video Streaming Association). After examining the report, the team will prepare the Minutes
Read More
June 30, 2026
Customs recordation is an enforcement mechanism in Myanmar that enables intellectual property (IP) rights holders to seek prevention of the cross-border movement of infringing goods. The enactment of Myanmar’s IP laws in 2019 has enabled customs recordation for registered marks and copyrights under the Trademark Law 2019 and the Copyright Law 2019. By contrast, the Patent Law 2019 and the Industrial Design Law 2019 do not provide a practical framework for customs recordation, and accordingly such rights are not subject to the customs recordation regime. Under the Trademark Law 2019, rights holders may apply for customs recordation and may also ask the Customs Department to suspend the release of goods suspected of bearing counterfeit marks. Likewise, the Copyright Law 2019 allows for customs intervention in relation to pirated works. These provisions reflect Myanmar’s gradual alignment with international standards on border measures, although the implementation framework remains at a relatively early stage of development. Customs Recordation Pursuant to the Trademark Law 2019 and the Copyright Law 2019, the relevant authorities have issued customs rules concerning the protection of registered marks and copyrights. In practice, the process generally begins with the submission of an application to the Customs Department together with supporting documentation. This typically includes proof of registration in Myanmar; details of the rights holder, applicant, and any authorized representative; and a comprehensive description of the genuine goods. Product identification materials—such as photographs, packaging samples, and distinguishing features—are particularly important in helping customs officers identify suspected infringing goods. A recordation remains valid for two years from the date of approval. It may be renewed for additional two-year terms, provided that the renewal application is filed within the thirty days prior to expiry for marks and up to thirty days in advance of the expiry date for copyrights, in accordance with
Read More