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

December 7, 2023

Hague Design Applications in Vietnam Still Face Issues

Subscribe to Updates
Managing Intellectual Property

The Hague Agreement Concerning the International Registration of Industrial Designs (the Hague Agreement) officially took effect in Vietnam on December 30, 2019. Since then the Hague Express Database reports that more than 1,300 international design applications have designated Vietnam, and many of them have been examined by Vietnam’s IP Office before a statement of grant of protection was issued. However, from the time the Hague Agreement took effect until the amended Intellectual Property Law took effect on January 1, 2023, there were no legal documents regulating the process and procedures for examining these applications in Vietnam. This caused some difficulties in the examination process and many applications filed from 2020 to date remain in limbo, with the applicants having submitted responses to refusals, but yet to receive further results on the grant or refusal of protection.

The amended IP Law introduced Article 93.9 on the validity of international registrations of industrial designs according to the Hague Agreement. More recently, Decree 65/2023/ND-CP (Decree 65) introduced a new section on the filing and processing of Hague international design applications, with detailed regulations on the handling of Hague applications originating in Vietnam and Hague applications designating Vietnam. These new regulations have generally improved the international application process in Vietnam for both the IP Office and design applicants; however, they have not resolved some existing problems and in some cases have created more burdens for applicants.

Submission of priority documents

Article 24.8 of Decree 65 requires that within three months from the date of the International Bureau’s notification of the Hague Application designating Vietnam, applicants wishing to benefit from a priority must submit documents proving their priority right to the IP Office for approval. This is a completely new requirement that applies to all international design applications designating Vietnam starting from the effective date of Decree 65 (August 23, 2023).

Generally, communication between the IP Office and foreign applicants must be intermediated by an IP agent. As Vietnam currently does not accept electronic priority documents or participate in WIPO’s Digital Access Service (DAS) system, applicants must work with local IP agents to prepare priority documents in paper form and submit them directly at the IP Office. This is a new burden for applicants as they previously only needed to work with the local agent when the application was rejected. In practice, the statutory time limit of three months cannot be extended, and the procedure for receiving priority documents at the IP Office requires clearly indicating the Vietnamese application number corresponding to the international design application. This has caused difficulties for applicants and IP agents, as checking the Vietnamese application number assigned to the international design application is inconvenient.

Unclear regulations on powers of attorney

Though transactions between the IP Office and foreign applicants normally need to go through a local agent, there are no specific regulations on the submission of powers of attorney when the applicant wants to submit priority documents or a response to a notification of refusal for a Hague design application. Currently, the applicant’s responses are all filed via a local agent and are accompanied by a power of attorney. However, the deadline for submitting the power of attorney is unclear, as is the possibility of any deadline extension, creating further challenges.

Processing time after response to notification of refusal

Articles 24.6 and 24.7 of Decree 65 stipulate that, if the applicant’s corrections of defects and/or responses are acceptable, the IP Office will issue a statement of grant of protection. If a three-month period passes without an acceptable response/correction from the applicant, the IP Office will issue a decision to refuse protection. However, there is no regulation on the time limit for the IP Office to provide this further communication. Currently, many applicants have responded to notifications of refusals without receiving any subsequent notification/decision from the IP Office. This makes the applicants uncertain about whether their applications will be protected in Vietnam, and when the registration procedure will actually be completed.

Reproductions of designs accepted for protection are not published

Decree 65 sets out that the IP Office’s statement of grant of protection is to be published in the Industrial Property Gazette within two months from the date of the statement. However, it is unclear whether reproductions of the designs accepted for protection will also be published. Specifically, the content accepted for protection after amendments may not be accessible. We believe that reproductions of designs accepted for protection need to be published and included in the online database of the IP Office to facilitate the public’s access and searches for information.

Other issues

The current regulations do not provide a procedure for voluntary amendments of international designs, (such as amending the descriptions or drawings), assignments, or changes made only for the national phase in Vietnam. In addition, although requirements for industrial design specifications have been reduced under the amended IP Law, they are still not in line with the requirements in other countries. This leads to objections to many specifications of international design applications when entering the national phase in Vietnam; the new regulations are not as favorable for applicants as expected.

As IP practitioners, we hope that the upcoming circular of the Ministry of Science and Technology on industrial property (expected to be issued within December 2023) and the IP Office’s guidelines on industrial design examination will be adjusted to provide a legal basis to resolve the above issues.

This article first appeared in Managing Intellectual Property.

Download Full Article
Related Professionals

Practices

Intellectual Property

Location

RELATED INSIGHTS​ 

January 4, 2023
In early November 2022, a Thai appeals court overruled the Trademark Registrar’s decision and the Board of Trademarks’ ruling by upholding the registrability of an oil company’s trademark application for its branded service station layout. This is the latest word in a long-running dispute between ExxonMobil and the country’s Department of Intellectual Property (DIP), which had previously rejected the mark as indistinctive. ExxonMobil first filed applications in April 2015 for a trademark bearing a unique colorful drawing of the layout of a service station bearing its well-known registered “ESSO” mark in International Classes 4 and 35 in Thailand. However, the Thai Trademark Registrar refused to register the mark, arguing that the mark was devoid of inherent distinctiveness because the service station layout drawing is directly descriptive of the applied-for goods and services related to oil products. According to the Registrar, the public would not be able to distinguish between the goods and services bearing ExxonMobil’s mark and those bearing the marks of others. ExxonMobil appealed this refusal to the Board of Trademarks, which ultimately agreed that ExxonMobil’s marks are devoid of inherent distinctiveness. The Board explained that the dominant elements in the drawing consist of a common service station with fuel dispensers, which is directly related to the applied-for goods and services related to oil products. The Board also deemed that the submitted evidence was insufficient to prove that the mark had gained distinctiveness through use. ExxonMobil disagreed with these rulings and thus filed a civil complaint with the Intellectual Property and International Trade Court (IP&IT Court) to revoke the Registrar’s decisions and the Board’s rulings. The IP&IT Court examined the case and issued its judgment in favor of ExxonMobil, ruling that the marks are inherently distinctive. The Court noted that to consider a mark’s distinctiveness, it is crucial
Read More
January 4, 2023
In decisions dated 29 September 2022, the Lao Department of Intellectual Property (DIP) has cancelled two trademark registrations based on their confusing similarity to earlier marks. An official from the DIP unofficially confirmed that these decisions are the first of their kind in Laos and, as such, constitute a positive step that puts legal provisions into actual practice. Background In Laos, cancellation proceedings against a registered mark are not common, as the number of applications in the country is relatively low and thorough substantive examination only began to be carried out in recent years. There was previously no precedent for how cancellation decisions would be handled, despite the Law on Intellectual Property (No. 38/NA of 15 November 2017) allowing a third party to file a petition for the cancellation of a registered mark if it can be proven that the mark should not be granted registration. The Law on Intellectual Property states that a third party may object to, or request the cancellation of, a trademark registration within five years of its date of publication in the Official Gazette. However, it is difficult to ascertain how to calculate the five-year period if the mark was registered before June 2019, as publication in the Official Gazette was first made available at that time. This could mean that the five-year statutory limitation for trademark cancellation in Laos could start from June 2024, but how this will be applied in practice remains to be seen. The Case This case began when Siam Kubota Corporation Co Ltd took action against two marks that looked similar to its own earlier marks (see Figure 1): Figure 1. Earlier registered marks Siam Kubota registered its marks in 2009 for goods in Class 12, and has extensively used and protected the marks in Laos. After reviewing its
Read More
December 22, 2022
Rules for franchising in Indonesia were first published in 1997 through a government regulation and a ministerial decree, which was subsequently amended several times. The franchising regulations currently in effect are Government Regulation No. 42 of 2007 concerning Franchises and Regulation issued by the Minister of Trade No. 71 of 2019 concerning the Implementation of Franchising (MOT No. 71 of 2019). Franchises in Indonesia must meet certain criteria that distinguish them from other types of businesses, and franchising must be based on a franchise agreement governed by Indonesian law. Prior to entering into a franchise agreement, a franchisor must provide a prospectus (disclosure document) to the prospective franchisee at least two weeks before the execution of the franchise agreement so that the prospective franchisee has sufficient time to review the reputation and goodwill of the franchisor through the prospectus. The prospectus must contain various details about the franchise business, its management, its operations, and other relevant aspects. Both local and foreign franchisors must obtain a franchise registration certificate—referred to as an STPW—from the Ministry of Trade before offering their franchises to prospective franchisees. The franchisee is also required to obtain an STPW. The STPW for the franchisor is the proof of prospectus registration, while the STPW for the franchisee is the proof of registration of the franchise agreement. Franchisors and franchisees who have STPWs are required to submit reports on franchise business activities to the Ministry of Trade’s director of business development and distribution by the end of June each year. Up to three written warnings will be served on a franchisor or franchisee who does not comply with the registration requirements. A fine of up to IDR 100 million (approx. USD 6,400) will be imposed if the franchisor or franchisee fails to respond to the warnings. MOT No.
Read More
December 21, 2022
As Vietnam’s newly amended Intellectual Property Law will take effect on January 1, 2023, the government has been working with related authorities to rapidly issue necessary decrees to guide the law’s implementation, including a decree on copyright and related rights. It is expected that this new decree will be released soon, to also take effect on January 1, 2023. The latest publicly available version of the new decree is the third draft (“draft decree”). Some major issues that are covered under the draft decree are discussed below. Definitions of terms The draft decree provides detailed definitions of some important terms; for example, publication of works is clarified as “issuing copies of works in a reasonable quantity sufficient for public access, depending on the nature of the work,” and the exact time is made clear for re-broadcasting (after the broadcast time) and relay of a program (at the same time as the broadcast time). Right to Perform a Work Before the Public Article 15 clarifies the definition of the right to perform a work in public, directly or indirectly, through sound and video recordings or any other technical means which the public can access but by which they cannot freely choose the time and part of the work, so as to distinguish it from distribution rights. The draft decree also specifies what constitutes the act of performing the work for each type of work.  Rights of Co-Authors and Co-Owners of Works Article 16 clearly distinguishes the circumstances in which (i) co-authors are also co-owners of a copyright and (ii) co-authors are not concurrently copyright owners. The draft decree further clarifies that co-owners of copyright have the right to waive the right to publish the work and property rights.  Exceptions to Copyright Infringement Article 26 provides that “reasonably copying a part
Read More