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 23, 2020

EVFTA Introduces New Standards for Intellectual Property Enforcement in Vietnam

While Vietnam’s economy has grown quiet during the first half of 2020 amid the COVID-19 pandemic, the country’s legal framework for intellectual property enforcement seems to be exploding with the entry of new legal instruments. The EVFTA (EU-Vietnam Free Trade Agreement), coming on the heels of the CPTPP, will come into force in Vietnam on August 1, 2020, bringing about some major changes to the current IPE framework. We discuss a few of these changes below.

Preliminary Injunctions

The EVFTA clarifies and supplements the circumstances in which a right holder can seek a preliminary injunction. Particularly, the EVFTA requires Vietnam to codify the following situations where interlocutory injunctions are applicable:

  • To preclude an infringement from occurring; and
  • To preserve evidence in respect of an alleged infringement, including physical seizure of infringing goods and any materials and implements used for producing and distributing the goods.

The court can grant such interim injunctive relief against a “party whose services are being used by a third party to infringe an intellectual property right and over whom the relevant judicial authority exercises jurisdiction.”

As currently provided in Vietnam’s domestic laws, the court can issue provisional measures without hearing the other party’s position. However, the domestic laws are still incompatible with the EVFTA as they allow the filing of preliminary injunction motions only in the context of a lawsuit (right at the time of filing a suit or during the proceedings of the suit). When the EVFTA takes force, Vietnam must remove this regulation and allow a motion to be filed at any appropriate time.

In fact, in 2017, Vietnam introduced a draft law on provisional measures prior to a suit. However, some of the relevant stakeholders were critical of this draft law and, so far, it seems it is still on the shelf. However, Vietnam could soon revisit this matter to conform with the EVFTA’s requirements.

Court Injunctions

With the advent of the EVFTA, Vietnamese courts can now issue final injunctions not only against infringers, but also against parties who provide relevant services to infringers, such as those who store or manage infringing goods. When it comes to unintentional infringement, the EVFTA seems to favor a soft approach. The pact recommends Vietnam make allowance for pecuniary relief in replacement of certain remedial measures. It also proposes that Vietnam’s courts “order in favor of the injured party the recovery of profits or the payment of damages which may be pre-established.” In our view, in most cases, such granted amount would be a far cry from the actual damages the right holder incurs.

Notably, the EVFTA seems to require Vietnam to introduce a regime of “permanent injunction.” Thus far, the final injunctions issued by courts apply to infringement that occurred in the past or is ongoing. To some extent, it is a one-time injunction. When the infringer commits recidivism, the right holder must file another suit to put a stop to such infringement. Now, with the language of Article 12.49 of the EVFTA’s IP Chapter, the court can issue a final injunction to prevent infringement in the future.

Presumption of Ownership

So far, Vietnam has not expressly touched on the presumption of authorship or ownership of rights. This lack of regulation poses a real difficulty to the courts in tackling IP disputes, especially copyright infringement. Often, an IP marking does not come into play in the court’s assessment as Vietnamese courts tend to count on clear regulations or confirmation from other authorities on the ownership. In a recent court case, the court was unaware of the ownership of a copyrighted work despite the copyright symbol (©) appearing on the work. With the clear regulation under the EVFTA, it is expected that IP enforcement, especially copyright enforcement, will be greatly facilitated.

Also, a product configuration (the shape or design of a product) under the EVFTA would enjoy protection as both industrial design and copyright. As such, if a product configuration is not registered as a design patent, the owner could fall back on copyright law to take on copycat traders.

Other Changes

The EVFTA provides for the liability of internet service providers (ISPs) in the context of copyright infringement. Generally, the treaty focuses on the limitations of, or exceptions from, such liabilities, which differs substantially from the structure of the current domestic law, which sets out situations where the ISP must assume responsibility (in other words, the ISP does not bear any responsibility in situations other than those mentioned in the law). As of the effective date of the EVFTA, Vietnam must revise the current regime to reflect the EVFTA’s requirement.

The EVFTA also regulates border enforcement. Generally, the domestic laws are in line with these regulations. The EVFTA obligates customs authorities to be actively involved in customs seizure of suspected IP-infringing goods, and to cooperate with right holders, including providing them with relevant information for risk analysis.

Though the EVFTA ushers Vietnam into an era of more effective IP enforcement, it is just a foundation, a law in the books, until Vietnam does more to actually enforce IP rights to the satisfaction of right holders, and meeting the expectations of the EVFTA.

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.
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
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
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