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?

Subscribe to Updates

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 Professionals

Practices

Intellectual Property

Location

RELATED INSIGHTS​ 

July 13, 2026
When Decree No. 186/2026/ND-CP (Decree 186) takes effect on July 15, 2026, it will introduce the most significant reform of Vietnam’s administrative IP enforcement framework since Decree 99/2013/ND-CP was issued in 2013. These changes are expected to make administrative enforcement faster, more accessible, and better suited to the realities of modern IP disputes. Below are the principal reforms and their practical implications for rights holders and enforcement practitioners. The End of Notarization and Consular Legalization Among the most welcome procedural changes is the abolition of the notarization and consular legalization requirement for powers of attorney (POA) submitted in administrative enforcement proceedings. Under the previous regime, foreign rights holders were generally required to execute a POA, then have it notarized and consular legalized (if seeking customs recordal). In practice, this process frequently delayed enforcement by four to eight weeks, often long enough for infringing goods to disappear before authorities could intervene. Decree 186 removes this bottleneck, now requiring only an original or certified copy of the POA. If the document is in a foreign language, a Vietnamese translation is sufficient, provided it is certified by a competent authority or confirmed by the authorized Vietnamese IP representative. Consular legalization and notarization are no longer required. For rights holders, the practical impact is substantial. Administrative enforcement files that previously took weeks to prepare can now be completed in a matter of days, allowing much faster responses in time-sensitive matters such as warehouse raids, border interventions, and trade-fair enforcement. The decree also introduces a useful administrative simplification. Where an original POA has already been submitted to the same enforcement authority and remains valid, applicants may rely on a copy of that earlier submission by identifying the previous case file. This eliminates unnecessary duplication for rights holders pursuing multiple enforcement actions before the same
Read More
July 9, 2026
Recycling, upcycling, and refill-packaging models are now widely promoted as ways to reduce waste, lower carbon emissions, and respond to consumer demand for sustainable products. However, complications arise when these environmentally driven trends intersect with intellectual property law—particularly where reused or altered packaging continues to display third parties’ registered trademarks. Adding to this complexity, Thailand’s draft Sustainable Packaging Management Act aims to introduce new environmental compliance obligations that businesses must navigate alongside existing trademark concerns. Recycling and upcycling packaging may infringe trademark rights, especially in cases not protected by the first-sale doctrine—the principle that a trademark owner’s rights over a particular mark-bearing product end once the owner first sells it. Furthermore, even refill packaging carries legal risk due to specific statutory prohibitions under Thai law. Compounding these challenges, the draft Sustainable Packaging Management Act will impose extended producer responsibility (EPR) obligations on manufacturers and brand owners, requiring them to manage packaging throughout its lifecycle. These overlapping legal frameworks could deter manufacturers from pursuing ESG-aligned business models unless businesses understand how to navigate both trademark and environmental requirements. Under Thai law, this issue remains uncertain because the Trademark Act does not expressly codify the first sale doctrine, also known as the exhaustion of trademark rights. Generally, this doctrine provides that once a trademark owner has lawfully sold goods bearing its trademark, the owner’s right to control further resale of those particular goods is exhausted. The rationale is that the owner has already received commercial benefit from the first authorized sale; therefore, the purchaser should be free to resell or otherwise dispose of the goods. Although the doctrine is not expressly codified in the Trademark Act, Thai courts have recognized it in relation to genuine goods and parallel imports, as seen in a Supreme Court Judgment No. 2817/2543 in which the
Read More
July 6, 2026
Indonesia’s regulation on reporting online intellectual property (IP) infringement provides comprehensive procedural guidance for IP rights holders and their licensees in reporting online infringement complaints. Issued in December 2025 by the Ministry of Law as Regulation No. 47 of 2025 regarding Handling of Intellectual Property Infringement Reports in Electronic Systems, this regulation covers all types of IP rights. It also specifies documentation when reporting infringement, and lays out the procedures for examination, verification, and enforcement actions. Submission of Complaints Complainants may submit reports through the online system of the Directorate General of Intellectual Property (DGIP) or in person at the DGIP office. Complaints may also be filed through an authorized proxy. Under the regulation, complainants are required to provide the following information and documents: Personal details of the complainant; Brief description of the protected work or subject matter (i.e., type of IP and name or address of the infringing website, portal, account, or application, or a link to the location of the infringing content); Complete description of the alleged infringement; Certificate of registration or recordal of the relevant IP; Recordal of IP license agreement, if any; and Other supporting evidence. Verification and Examination Process Upon receiving a complaint, the responsible formality officer may request clarification or additional supporting documents. In the latter case, the complainant must then submit the necessary administrative documents within 14 days of the notification date. Once the documentation is deemed complete and sufficient, the case will be formally registered. Subsequently, the DGIP will establish a verification team to handle online IP violations, which will include the Civil Servant Investigator (PPNS), the Ministry of Communication and Digital Affairs, experts with relevant expertise in IP, and representatives from related associations such as AVISI (Indonesian Video Streaming Association). After examining the report, the team will prepare the Minutes
Read More
June 30, 2026
Customs recordation is an enforcement mechanism in Myanmar that enables intellectual property (IP) rights holders to seek prevention of the cross-border movement of infringing goods. The enactment of Myanmar’s IP laws in 2019 has enabled customs recordation for registered marks and copyrights under the Trademark Law 2019 and the Copyright Law 2019. By contrast, the Patent Law 2019 and the Industrial Design Law 2019 do not provide a practical framework for customs recordation, and accordingly such rights are not subject to the customs recordation regime. Under the Trademark Law 2019, rights holders may apply for customs recordation and may also ask the Customs Department to suspend the release of goods suspected of bearing counterfeit marks. Likewise, the Copyright Law 2019 allows for customs intervention in relation to pirated works. These provisions reflect Myanmar’s gradual alignment with international standards on border measures, although the implementation framework remains at a relatively early stage of development. Customs Recordation Pursuant to the Trademark Law 2019 and the Copyright Law 2019, the relevant authorities have issued customs rules concerning the protection of registered marks and copyrights. In practice, the process generally begins with the submission of an application to the Customs Department together with supporting documentation. This typically includes proof of registration in Myanmar; details of the rights holder, applicant, and any authorized representative; and a comprehensive description of the genuine goods. Product identification materials—such as photographs, packaging samples, and distinguishing features—are particularly important in helping customs officers identify suspected infringing goods. A recordation remains valid for two years from the date of approval. It may be renewed for additional two-year terms, provided that the renewal application is filed within the thirty days prior to expiry for marks and up to thirty days in advance of the expiry date for copyrights, in accordance with
Read More