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​ 

July 24, 2026
As food innovation continues to accelerate, manufacturers are increasingly introducing ingredients derived from new sources, produced using novel technologies, or lacking a significant history of human consumption. While these innovations create new opportunities for the food industry, they also raise important questions regarding consumer safety. For this reason, many jurisdictions, including Thailand, the European Union, Australia and New Zealand, Canada, and Singapore, require a premarket safety assessment for novel food ingredients before they can be placed on the market. The objective of this assessment is to ensure that each ingredient is safe for its intended use and level of consumption, does not present toxicological, allergenic, microbiological, or nutritional concerns, and will not mislead consumers. Scientific authorities typically evaluate the ingredient’s identity, manufacturing process, composition, specifications, anticipated dietary exposure, toxicological information, nutritional impact, and history of use before determining whether it can be marketed. Against this background, the Thai Food and Drug Administration (FDA) recently took an important step toward improving regulatory transparency by publishing, for the first time, a consolidated public list of substances that have successfully completed the Thai FDA’s safety assessment process, including substances determined to be novel foods and those determined not to fall within the novel food category. The list identifies the approved substances, the corresponding manufacturers or importers, approval dates, and the approved conditions of use. Although the publication does not change the existing legal framework governing novel food approvals, it provides businesses with greater visibility into the Thai FDA’s regulatory precedents and the types of substances that have previously been accepted through the safety assessment process. The full announcement is available on the Thai FDA’s website. As the list is now publicly available, it also provides useful insight into the types of substances that have successfully completed the Thai FDA’s safety assessment process.
July 24, 2026
Indonesia has updated its fee framework for intellectual property (IP)-related government services, with implications for IP owners, licensees, lenders, digital platforms, and businesses operating in the country. Government Regulation No. 30 of 2026 on Types and Tariffs of Non-Tax State Revenue Applicable to the Ministry of Law (GR 30/2026) was promulgated on July 2, 2026, and will take effect on August 1, 2026. Key Takeaways GR 30/2026, which replaces the relevant IP service fees under Government Regulation No. 45 of 2024, reorganizes the fee schedule into separate categories for copyright, industrial designs, patents, layout designs of integrated circuits, trade secrets, trademarks, geographical indications, IP enforcement, and other categories. The most commercially relevant changes include a new copyright recordation tariff exemption for songs and music, higher fees for several trademark and geographical indication services, new IP enforcement service fees, and a new fee type for registration of fiduciary security over IP rights objects. In addition, this is the first major update for trademark fees in approximately 10 years. GR 30/2026 is significant not only as a fee update but also as a further indication of Indonesia’s increasing recognition of IP as a financeable commercial asset. By expressly assigning fees to the registration of fiduciary security over IP rights objects, the regulation places IP-backed collateral filings within the Ministry of Law’s administrative service framework. While GR 30/2026 does not create a new secured-transactions regime, this development is relevant for lenders, borrowers, and IP owners structuring financing arrangements secured by trademarks, patents, copyrights, industrial designs, or other registrable IP rights in Indonesia. Copyright: New Fee Exemption for Songs and Music Recordation For copyright, GR 30/2026 creates a fee-exempt category for recordation of works or related-rights products for songs or music, while maintaining a separate category for other works and related-rights products. It
July 21, 2026
Thailand’s Ministry of Digital Economy and Society (MDES) published a notification establishing an expedited court-ordered takedown mechanism for online content in cases of “urgent necessity.” The notification, which was issued on July 17, 2026, under the Computer Crime Act B.E. 2550 (2007), as amended, took effect the following day. It significantly expands the categories of content subject to rapid government-initiated removal. Content Categories Subject to Takedown The notification defines “urgent necessity” (section 20, paragraph 5, of the Computer Crime Act) as circumstances where any delay in suppressing computer data may impact national security, religion, the monarchy, good morals, social culture, or public order. In this regard, it establishes four broad categories of content: Computer Crime Act offenses. National security offenses. IP and other criminal offenses, where it is contrary to public order or good morals and a competent officer has requested its suppression. Content contrary to public order or good morals, a broad residual category encompassing 14 subcategories approved by the Computer Data Screening Committee. The fourth category is the most expansive. Its 14 subcategories include: Content defaming, mocking, satirizing, or devaluing the monarchy. Online gambling advertising or facilitation. Offering illegal firearms for sale. Offering baraku (hookah) products or e-cigarettes for sale. Offering cannabis inflorescences or processed cannabis products for sale. Advertising or soliciting prostitution. Content inciting violence, hatred, or social division. Unauthorized overseas employment advertising. Offering boiled kratom juice for sale. Online sale or advertising of alcoholic beverages. Content satirizing or degrading Buddhism. Money lending at interest rates exceeding legally prescribed limits. Advertising or disseminating information about surrogacy services. Forgery of documents, cards, or official documents. Enforcement Procedure In cases of urgent necessity, a competent official assigned by the MDES permanent secretary must file a petition with supporting evidence to the court with jurisdiction, requesting an order to
July 15, 2026
Ambush marketing refers to a strategy in which a business associates itself with an event, campaign, or brand without paying for official sponsorship rights. The tactic is most visible in sports, concerts, and festivals, where official sponsors have invested substantially for exclusivity. Ambush marketers may use suggestive wording, event-themed imagery, athlete endorsements, venue-adjacent promotions, or social media campaigns implying a commercial connection with the event. Common Forms of Ambush Marketing Ambush marketing typically takes one of the following forms: Direct ambushing: using event names, logos, or mascots suggesting authorization Coattail ambushing: sponsoring an athlete or broadcaster connected with the event Subtle ambushing: themed advertising, venue-adjacent campaigns, or similar visual cues The legal analysis in each case turns on whether the marketing crosses from permissible event-based advertising into infringement, passing off, deception, or wrongful exploitation of goodwill, and the risk assessment is necessarily fact-specific. Thailand has no dedicated ambush marketing statute, so legality depends on execution. A campaign that merely comments on a public event may be permissible, but one that uses protected marks, creates consumer confusion, misrepresents sponsorship status, or makes unsubstantiated claims may trigger liability under various Thai laws, as laid out below. Ambush Marketing and Thailand’s Trademark Act The Trademark Act B.E. 2534 (1991) is the primary tool for addressing campaigns that use registered trademarks, event names, logos, mascots, or confusingly similar signs. The law gives registered trademark owners the exclusive right to use their mark for registered goods, and infringement risk arises when a nonsponsor uses an event mark or a confusingly similar sign in advertising. Even referential or playful use may create liability if it causes public confusion as to sponsorship or commercial connection. The law also preserves passing-off claims for unregistered marks. This matters because event names, taglines, or mascots may not always be