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

January 8, 2020

How Does the Hague Agreement Affect Industrial Design Registration in Vietnam?

The Hague Agreement Concerning the International Registration of Industrial Designs (Geneva Act of July 2, 1999 – “1999 Act”) officially took effect in Vietnam on December 30, 2019. Hague System users can now designate Vietnam in an international design application.

The notes below provide an overview of how Vietnam is implementing the agreement, and are based on the country’s instrument of accession and its accompanying declarations, as well as information shared at a recent workshop held by the Intellectual Property Office of Vietnam and discussions with officers from the patent office.

For further information on registering industrial designs through the Hague System in Vietnam, please contact us at [email protected].

I. Application

1. Application requirements

A description is required. Vietnam made the declaration referred to in Article 5(2)(a) of the 1999 Act, whereby an international application designating Vietnam shall contain a brief description of the characteristic features of the design, pursuant to Article 5(2)(b)(ii).

A claim is required in compliance with the common form: “Application for overall protection for industrial design(s) as shown and described.” Vietnam made the declaration referred to in Article 5(2)(a) of the 1999 Act, whereby an international application designating Vietnam shall contain a claim for protection of the design, pursuant to Article 5(2)(b)(iii).

Indications concerning the identity of the creator are not required, although such information is required for a Vietnamese national application.

2. Drawings/photos

A perspective view for three-dimensional designs is required. Vietnam made the declaration referred to in Rule 9(3) of the Common Regulations under the 1999 Act and the 1960 Act of the Hague Agreement.

The Intellectual Property Office of Vietnam (IP Office) may, however, refuse the application as not being sufficient to fully disclose the industrial design under Rule 9(4) if other views, especially six orthogonal views (front, back, top, bottom, right side and left side views), are not provided.

 

3. Filing and designation

An international application in which Vietnam is the applicant’s Contracting Party may be filed with the IP Office or the International Bureau of WIPO, as Vietnam does not make the declaration under Article 4(1)(b).

An international application in which Vietnam is the applicant’s Contracting Party may designate Vietnam, as Vietnam does not make the declaration under Article 14(3)(a).

II. Publication

Deferment of the publication is impossible. Vietnam made the declaration referred to in Article 11(1)(b) of the 1999 Act, whereby the legislation of Vietnam does not provide for the deferment of the publication of an industrial design.

Vietnam does not publish international design registrations in its own official gazette although international trademark registrations are published.

III. Fees

Vietnam applies level three of the standard designation fee under Rule 12(1)(c)(i).

Where an international application is filed with the IP Office, a transmittal fee of VND 2 million (about USD 87) per design is to be charged under Rule 13(2).

IV. Examination

1. Period of examination and response deadline

The period for the notification of refusal is six months from the publication date. Vietnam does not make the declaration under Rule 18(1)(b).

The holder has three months to file a response to the notification of refusal with the IP Office, with the possibility of one three-month extension.

2. Unity of design requirements

Vietnam made the declaration referred to in Article 13(1) of the 1999 Act, whereby, in accordance with the legislation of Vietnam, only one independent and distinct design may be claimed in a single international application, except that:

  • Designs that are the subject of the same international application must belong to the same set of composition of items and conform to a requirement of unity of design, unity of use, or accompaniment of each other in use, or
  • A design may be accompanied by single or multiple options that are variations of that design and which must conform to a requirement of unity of design and be insignificantly different from that design.

3. Grounds of refusal

A design may be refused on the following grounds:

(i) The design does not comply with the definition of a design. Partial designs may be objected to on this ground.

(ii) The set of drawings/photos is not sufficient to fully disclose the design. Submission of multiple views, especially six orthogonal views, is advisable.

(iii) Other grounds:

  • The design does not satisfy the requirements of patentability: novelty, inventive step, and industrial applicability.
  • The application does not fulfill the unity of design requirement.
  • The application does not fulfill the first-to-file principle.
  • The design is contrary to social morality or public order.

Further notes on refusal:

A third-party opinion is to be considered and included as a ground in the notification of refusal. This is different from a Vietnamese national application, where such opinion will be sent to the design owner for comments, and then the comments will be sent to the third party, and so on.

The notification of refusal may become a final decision without further notice.

A statement of grant of protection may be considered to be a notification of withdrawal of refusal if such notification has been sent, as provided for in Rule 18bis(2).

Where the IP Office issues a decision of refusal after considering the response to the notification of refusal, such decision of refusal is appealable.

V. Protection Term

The term of protection is 15 years from the registration date. Vietnam made the declaration as required under Article 17(3)(c) of the 1999 Act, specifying that the maximum duration of protection provided for by the legislation of Vietnam in respect of industrial designs is 15 years.

VI. Other

A grace period is applicable to international applications in Vietnam. Under Article 65(4) of the Law on Intellectual Property:

An industrial design shall not be considered as lacking novelty if it was published in the following circumstances, provided that the industrial design registration application is filed within six months from the date of publication:

a) It was published by another person without permission of the person having the right to registration as provided for in Article 86 of this Law;

b) It was published in the form of a scientific report by the person having the right to registration as provided for in Article 86 of this Law;

c) It was exhibited at a national exhibition of Vietnam or at an official or officially recognized international exhibition by the person having the right to registration as provided for in Article 86 of this Law.

It is possible to make the declaration concerning an exception to lack of novelty after the publication of the international registration. It is required to submit its supporting documentation directly to the IP Office. Normally, it is submitted in response to a notification of refusal.

The International Bureau of WIPO will send the IP Office a copy of the international registration, along with any relevant statement, document or specimen accompanying the international application, as provided for in Article 10(5)(a).

Communication from the International Bureau of WIPO to the IP Office is to be in English, as provided for in Rule 6(3)(ii)).

International applications filed with the IP Office must be in English.

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