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 4, 2026
Intellectual property (IP) protection sometimes hinges on fame and recognition. However, this alone will not always be sufficient to overcome an IP dispute when it involves contractual obligations or registered rights. Below are five cases from around the world that tackle some of the basic issues in IP registration, ownership, commercialization, and enforcement. 1. USA: Taylor Swift Trademark Application Refused Taylor Swift recently filed a trademark application to register “The Life of a Showgirl,” which is the title of her 12th studio album. When examining a trademark application, the examiner considers various factors before deciding whether it should be registered. One of these factors is whether there is a likelihood of confusion (i.e., would a regular consumer mistake the origin of the trademark). In Taylor Swift’s case, the US Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO) decided that that there would be a risk of confusion. This decision was based on the existing registered trademark, “Confessions of a Showgirl,” owned by Maren Wade, which was registered in 2015. The USPTO refused Taylor Swift’s application based on the shared key distinctive element “of a showgirl,” the lack of sufficient distinguishing terms, the marks being used in overlapping markets (entertainment and performances), and because consumers may assume a common commercial source. Maren Wade then filed a lawsuit in California against Taylor Swift and her affiliated companies, arguing that Taylor Swfit’s branding is confusingly similar in structure, wording, and overall commercial impression to her registered mark. She is also drawing on the USPTO’s refusal of Taylor Swift’s application to support her argument of a likelihood of confusion. A judgment has not yet been reached in this case, but it serves as an important reminder of the importance of satisfying the essential elements required for IP registration. 2. Australia: Katy Perry v. Katie Perry In
July 27, 2026
Vietnam’s new E-Commerce Law, which took effect on 1 July 2026 along with its implementing Decree No. 248/2026/ND-CP (Decree 248), marks a significant development in the country’s approach to online intellectual property (IP) enforcement, reflecting a clear shift from a reactive model of intermediary liability to one that expects platforms to play a more active role in preventing infringement. From notice-and-takedown to platform responsibility The most significant change introduced by the E-Commerce Law is the transformation of the legal role of e-commerce platforms. The existing safe harbor provisions under the IP Law and the copyright notice-and-takedown regime established by Decree 17/2023/ND-CP (Decree 17) largely required intermediaries to act only after receiving notice of infringement. Once infringing content had been removed, the platform’s legal obligation was generally considered fulfilled. The new legislation adopts a fundamentally different approach. Article 17 of the E-Commerce Law requires intermediary platforms to screen information relating to goods and services before publication in order to prevent listings involving counterfeit or IP-infringing goods, and goods of unknown origin. Rather than relying exclusively on complaints from rights holders, platforms are now expected to implement preventive measures before infringing listings become publicly available. Decree 248 further requires platforms to update keyword filters based on recommendations issued by competent authorities. These filtering mechanisms are intended to prevent prohibited listings from appearing on the platform and represent a further move away from a purely complaint-driven enforcement model. The legislation also introduces Vietnam’s first statutory stay-down obligation. Under the E-Commerce Law and Decree 248, major digital platforms must maintain automated systems capable of reviewing, warning against, and removing unlawful listings while also implementing measures to prevent repeat violations, defined under Decree 248 as conduct that has previously been identified and handled by the platform, but continues to recur. This obligation addresses one
July 27, 2026
Tilleke & Gibbins’ intellectual property specialists have authored the Thailand chapter of Trade Secrets 2026 from Chambers and Partners. This global guide examines the legal frameworks governing trade secret protection, enforcement, and litigation across jurisdictions worldwide. The Thailand chapter provides a comprehensive overview of the country’s legal regime for protecting confidential business information, covering the legal framework, trade secret misappropriation, litigation procedures, remedies, and dispute resolution. Some topics covered include: Protectable trade secrets Reasonable measures to maintain secrecy Employee confidentiality Trade secret licensing Civil and criminal remedies Litigation procedures and injunctions Damages and other remedies Mediation and arbitration The guide also examines practical issues relating to safeguarding trade secrets, defending against allegations of misappropriation, and managing trade secret disputes in Thailand. Chambers and Partners’ Global Practice Guides provide in-house counsel with authoritative commentary on practical legal issues affecting business, enabling readers to compare legislation and procedures across multiple jurisdictions. The Thailand chapter of Trade Secrets 2026 is available as a PDF through the button below. The full guide can be accessed for free on the Chambers and Partners website.
July 27, 2026
In March 2025, Thailand’s Central Intellectual Property and International Trade Court (IP&IT Court) issued a landmark judgment in favor of Luckin Coffee, China’s leading retail coffee chain. The judgment marked a significant turnaround following earlier trademark litigation involving Luckin Coffee from 2021 to 2023 that had generated widespread public attention and raised questions about the protection available to legitimate foreign brand owners in Thailand. In a significant subsequent development, Thailand’s Court of Appeal for Specialized Cases has now affirmed the IP&IT Court’s judgment in its entirety. The appellate decision brings clarity to one of Thailand’s most closely watched trademark disputes. Significantly, this is the first case in Thailand to formally recognize the trademark squatting principle. The Court of Appeal confirmed that Luckin Coffee has a better right to the disputed mark and ordered cancellation of the defendants’ trademark registration—a key application of the “better right” doctrine. The court also upheld the substantial damages awarded at first instance, providing important guidance on assessing harm from systematic trademark squatting. Award-Winning Judgment Affirmed in Its Entirety The significance of the first-instance judgment extended beyond the outcome for Luckin Coffee. The IP&IT Court judgment was subsequently recognized in the IP&IT Court’s Distinguished Judgment Awards in 2025, reflecting the complexity, novelty, and legal significance of the issues considered in the case. The defendants nevertheless appealed the judgment, challenging several key aspects of the IP&IT Court’s decision. Luckin Coffee continued to entrust Tilleke & Gibbins as their sole attorney to pursue the case at the appellate level. After considering the defendants’ appeal and Luckin Coffee’s submissions in response, the Court of Appeal affirmed the first-instance judgment in its entirety. The judgment was announced on July 8, 2026. Better Right to the Marks The Court of Appeal confirmed Luckin Coffee’s superior rights. The orders include cancellation