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​ 

June 24, 2026
Patent enablement requirements are provided under Article 102 of Vietnam’s Law on Intellectual Property (IP Law). In particular, a patent specification must “fully and clearly disclose the nature of the invention to such an extent that, based on the specification, a person having ordinary skill in the relevant art can implement the invention.” In pharmaceutical and biotechnology patents, this requirement is more complicated and subject to more rigorous assessment. The Patent Examination Guidelines (Guidelines) of the Intellectual Property Office of Vietnam (IP Office) were amended in March 2026 to introduce Annexes III and IV for the pharmaceutical and biotechnology sectors, in which Annex III provides detailed guidelines on the assessment of specification requirements. These amendments were made under a project for strengthening capacity in industrial property examination between the Japan International Cooperation Agency (JICA) and the IP Office. Annex III provides detailed instructions on how examiners assess enablement in a pharmaceutical or biotechnology application, and offers examples of acceptable and unacceptable descriptions with regard to the enablement aspect. Enablement Requirements in Pharma and Biotech Patents Article 12.7 of Circular 10/2026/TT-BKHCN (Circular 10) adds to the requirements of Article 102 of the IP Law that the description must demonstrate the novelty, inventive step, and industrial applicability of the technical solution. For pharmaceutical composition subject matters, Article 12.9 of Circular 10 sets out that the description must present the results of clinical trials and/or the pharmacological effects of the claimed pharmaceutical composition, and must include at least the following information: Substance/mixture used. Testing method (system) employed. Information on the test results. Correlation between the pharmacological effects obtained from the tests and the application of the pharmaceutical product in the prevention, diagnosis, and treatment of diseases. The Guidelines note that pharmacological study results should be presented in a quantified manner, and pharmacological
Read More
June 16, 2026
Since the implementation of the Trademark Law 2019 on April 1, 2023, Myanmar has operated under a modern first-to-file trademark system that brings its registration framework closer to international practice. As the new regime continues to develop in practice, applicants are increasingly required to navigate formal examination requirements, substantive objections, and procedural deadlines with greater precision. This article provides a high-level review of the trademark examination process in Myanmar, focusing on the principal stages from initial review to approval, the types of objections commonly raised by the Intellectual Property Department (IPD), and the key considerations for responding effectively. A clear understanding of these issues is essential for applicants seeking to secure registration efficiently and to mitigate avoidable delays or refusals. Examination Process: Key Stages Trademark applications filed with the IPD undergo two stages of review. Formality Examination The IPD first verifies compliance with procedural requirements, including: Correct Nice Classification Clear mark representation Accurate applicant details Clearly defined goods or services Representative details, if the application is filed by a representative Other formality requirements cover translation and transliteration of any non-English or non-Myanmar elements in the mark, color claim details, applicable disclaimers, and payment of official fees. Deficiencies result in an office action requiring correction within 30 days, which may be extended upon request. Registrability Examination The IPD also assesses registrability. A mark may be refused if it: Lacks distinctiveness Is descriptive or generic Misleads the public or violates public order/morality Contains prohibited state symbols Only compliant applications proceed to publication. Responding to Office Actions Applicants must respond within 30 days of notification from the IPD. Depending on the nature of the objection, strategies may include submitting legal arguments for distinctiveness, providing evidence of acquired distinctiveness, filing appropriate disclaimers, clarifying descriptions such as color claims, or amending the listed goods
Read More
June 15, 2026
The surge in AI development has led to a desperate demand for large, high-quality training data. However, real-world data can be expensive to collect, difficult to access, and often subject to strict privacy and regulatory constraints. Synthetic data, which consists of artificially generated records that replicate the statistical properties of real-world data without reproducing specific individuals’ information, provides an appealing solution by generating artificial datasets at scale without relying on identifiable personal information. It combines speed, cost efficiency, and regulatory compliance, making it a sensible alternative for organizations seeking to reduce risks while maintaining data utility. When properly anonymized, synthetic datasets may fall outside the scope of laws such as the EU’s General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR) or Thailand’s Personal Data Protection Act (PDPA), reducing compliance burdens while still supporting high-quality model training. However, relying on synthetic data without rigorous legal due diligence could be a strategic mistake. It replaces one set of known risks (scraping, direct privacy liability) with a new set of complex liabilities. The narrative that synthetic data is a “silver bullet” for privacy and IP compliance is dangerous and could be misleading. While synthetic data addresses data scarcity, it also introduces new legal uncertainties. Legal counsel should anticipate downstream risks arising from compromised data sources. Models trained on unlawfully obtained data may need to be decommissioned, even if their outputs appear lawful. What is synthetic data? Synthetic data refers to artificially generated information created using AI techniques such as deep learning and generative models. Instead of copying real records, it reproduces the statistical patterns and relationships found in the original dataset. Synthetic data generally falls into three categories: Fully synthetic data – Entirely new data points generated from learned patterns. The model studies the structure of the original data and produces records that resemble real-world
Read More
June 10, 2026
In March 2026, the Intellectual Property Office of Vietnam (IP Office) issued a decision refusing a trademark application after considering an opposition based primarily on copyright grounds. The outcome is noteworthy because the foreign brand owner had neither trademark registrations nor applications in Vietnam at the time the opposition was filed, and the IP Office has historically applied a stringent approach to oppositions relying on copyright. The Opposition Maurten is a well-known Swedish sports nutrition brand recognized globally for its innovative hydrogel technology, which is designed to help endurance athletes fuel more effectively without gastrointestinal discomfort. The brand’s distinctive logo is characterized by clean lines and a bold black-and-white color scheme, and has long been associated with the company’s performance products. The brand’s logo is displayed above. An identical mark was filed for registration by a Vietnamese trademark squatter. In 2023, a Vietnamese individual filed an application for registration of an identical mark (Application No. 4-2023-38668), a practice commonly observed in Vietnam as trademark squatting. The brand owner engaged Tilleke & Gibbins to assist with strategy and filing an opposition to the mark. At the time, Maurten had no trademark rights or meaningful use in Vietnam, and global marketing data showed only modest figures without any local presence. Thus, to convince the IP Office to refuse the squatter’s application, instead of relying on trademark rights or use evidence, the opposition strategy centered on the copyright protection of the logo itself, as copyright arises automatically in Vietnam upon creation of the work and does not require registration. (It is worth noting, however, that the IP Office has traditionally been cautious in accepting copyright as a basis for refusing trademark applications.) On September 24, 2024, an opposition was filed on three main grounds: confusing similarity, copyright infringement of the artistic work,
Read More