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​ 

May 12, 2022
The presence of counterfeit goods in the Indonesian market is a stubbornly persistent challenge that has plagued the country for many years. The United States Trade Representative’s Special 301 Report, which is issued each year to assess intellectual property (IP) protection regimes around the world, has listed Indonesia on its “Priority Watch List” 23 times and on the “Watch List” 10 times. The 2021 report included the recommendation that Indonesia develop a specialized IP unit under the Indonesian National Police to focus on investigating domestic criminal syndicates behind counterfeiting and piracy. The police’s Special Crime Unit already handles IP matters and has been operating since long before 2021, but that year Indonesia also established its new IP Enforcement Task Force, which aims to improve intragovernmental coordination on enforcement. However, IP enforcement remains challenging in Indonesia. The police and the Directorate General of Intellectual Property (DGIP) handled 346 total IP enforcement cases from 2020 through early 2022. While it is positive to see some enforcement activity, this is a rather low number, considering that the Indonesian market and its population are very large—and that counterfeiting is a widespread and persistent problem. Shopping for a Solution One way Indonesia’s Trademark Office is trying to address the country’s repeated problems with counterfeiting and piracy is by introducing a certification system for shopping centers and malls based on their support for intellectual property rights and standards. The certificates are intended to guarantee that the establishment hosts sellers of genuine products. Both physical markets—such as Pasar Tanah Abang and Mangga Dua, two known markets for counterfeit goods—and online shopping venues are eligible to obtain a certificate. Specifically, this includes department stores, shopping streets, supermarkets, social media, online marketplaces, and crowdsourcing websites that digitally collects information, ideas, opinions, or work from a group of people.
Read More
May 6, 2022
To view this article in Vietnamese, please click here. In accordance with Article 59.2 of the Law on Intellectual Property issued in 2005, as amended and supplemented in 2009 and 2019 (“IP Law”), Vietnamese law currently does not recognize the protection of computer programs as inventions. However, in practice, if the subject-matter of an invention related to a computer program has technical characteristics and the program, when running on a computer, creates a further technical effect going beyond the usual physical interactions between a program and a computer, this subject-matter is likely to be protected as an invention. This condition is not codified, but is reflected in Article 5.8.2.5 of the patent examination guidelines issued in 2010, as amended and supplemented in 2020 – a reference document showing the guidance issued by the Intellectual Property Office of Vietnam (“IP Office”). Currently, at the formality examination stage, these “technical” conditions for inventions related to computer programs are quite easy to meet as it is only necessary to show that the subject-matter is a “Method performed by a computer for a purpose …”, “Processing apparatus…”, or “Computer-readable storage medium storing a program to perform the method…”. In the substantive examination stage, however, the “technical” condition is further scrutinized through the assessment of technical features stated in the subject-matter to determine whether the interaction between the program and the computer creates a further technical effect. The IP Office often issues office actions on substantive examination results because the computer-related patent application does not solve any technical problem and does not produce a further technical effect going beyond the normal interactions between the program and the computer. On December 31, 2021, the IP Office added to the patent examination guidelines mentioned above by issuing an annex with specific guidelines for examining patent applications
Read More
May 3, 2022
In early 2022 Thailand’s Department of Intellectual Property issued its new examination guidelines for trademark registration, replacing the previous guidelines dating from 2011. The new guidelines seek to ensure that the examination of trademark applications and the issuance of notifications by the trademark registrar are efficient, timely, in line with current practice and based on uniform standards. One of the major issues addressed in the new guidelines, which will be of interest to brand owners, is the distinctiveness of trademarks consisting solely of three/four letters or of numerals. Section 7 of Thailand’s Trademark Act states that a trademark containing a stylised letter or numeral as an essential element is distinctive. In the past, the trademark registrar interpreted this stipulation as meaning that marks made up solely of three/four letters or of numerals, which did not form words or could not be pronounced as words, were not registrable if they were not presented in a stylised form. Under the new guidelines, however, the Trademark Act’s wording “a stylised letter or numeral” is interpreted as referring to a letter or numeral (in any language) represented in an unusual manner. Moreover, the new guidelines state that an uncommon sequence of three or more letters or numerals (or a combination thereof) is in fact distinctive and registrable. One notable exception to the new standard is that marks that are descriptive of the nature or characteristics of the goods or services are not considered distinctive. The new guidelines provide several examples of marks that would be unregistrable for this reason, such as B12 for vitamins, XXL for clothing, 34B for bras, or 32GB for memory cards. The new guidelines also clearly state that the phonetic transcription of letters or numerals in Thai characters is not considered distinctive. Nonetheless, brand owners still have the right
Read More
March 31, 2022
Since the onset of the COVID-19 pandemic and the ensuing safety measures, many Thai retailers have shifted their sales toward online platforms. Unsurprisingly, counterfeiters have followed suit. The online sale of counterfeit healthcare and other life sciences products (e.g., food, cosmetics, and medical devices) is an area of significant concern, as it is particularly prevalent, damaging, and complex in relation to Thailand’s laws. This article outlines this type of counterfeiting activity in Thailand and explains some important tools brand owners have for fighting it. Counterfeiting Operations Although illicit operations seek to avoid being identified by authorities and brand owners, investigations by law enforcement and Tilleke & Gibbins on behalf of clients have yielded some insights into how these illegitimate sellers typically operate. Often, consumers are first exposed to these counterfeit life sciences products by paid social media advertisements that link to social media accounts set up by sellers impersonating brand owners. This brand impersonation may include unauthorized use of a trademark or trade name as part of the account name, and unauthorized reproduction of official advertisement artwork or product descriptions, taken directly from the official social media account. From the fake social media account, consumers are usually directed to a merchant website that contains consumer reviews, which are entirely fabricated. While not every counterfeiting operation follows this exact blueprint, employing some variation of these methods lends counterfeiting platforms the ability to proliferate through multiple iterations, as well as believability in the eyes of consumers. How Brand Owners Can Take Action Life sciences brand owners often discover that their products have been targeted by counterfeiters when a counterfeit item injures or negatively impacts a consumer. Thinking that the product is genuine, the consumer may then complain to the brand owner, or worse, file a complaint with the authorities. Many times
Read More