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 30, 2026

Industrial Design Protection for Locarno Class 32: A New Era in Vietnam

Subscribe to Updates
Managing Intellectual Property

Vietnam’s Intellectual Property (IP) Law, despite being amended in 2022, underwent another significant revision at the end of 2025. The latest amendment aimed to address five major policy objectives set by the Vietnamese government, including promoting innovation, digital transformation, and international integration.

Among the most notable changes in the 2025 IP Law, which takes effect on 1 April 2026, is the expansion of industrial design protection under Article 4.13. The revised definition now includes partial designs and intangible designs, marking a transformative shift in Vietnam’s industrial design regime.

This change has particularly significant implications on designs classified under Class 32 of the Locarno Classification—which covers graphic designs, logos, ornamentation, surface patterns, arrangements, and other intangible products. These designs, previously excluded from protection in Vietnam, are now recognized under the new legal framework.

Background: Status of Class 32 Designs Before 2026

Th Intellectual Property Office of Vietnam currently applies the 13th edition of the Locarno Classification for industrial design filings. However, not all classes in this system have historically been eligible for protection. Under the 2022 IP Law, Class 32 designs were explicitly excluded based on the following legal grounds:

  • Definition under Article 4.13 (2022 IP Law): “An industrial design is the external appearance of a product or a component for assembly into a complex product, expressed in shapes, lines, colors, or a combination thereof, and visible during the exploitation of the product’s utility or the complex product.”
  • Product requirements under Article 21.2 of Circular 23/2023/TT-BKHCN: A product is defined as an object, a tool, a device, or means, manufactured by industrial or handicraft methods, with clear structure and function. A component for assembly into a complex product must be capable of independent circulation and detachable from the complex product.

Based on these definitions, Class 32 designs, such as graphical user interfaces (GUIs) were excluded because they could only circulate with the devices with which they were associated. Applications for such designs were thus typically rejected during the formality examination stage, prior to publication.

In earlier years, when the exclusion of intangible designs was not clearly defined, applicants often attempted to modify their filings to fit eligible categories. For example:

  • A logo design (Class 32) could be reclassified as a label design (Class 19).
  • An ornamental pattern (Class 32) could be converted into a decorative material sheet (Class 11).

However, the IP Office later prohibited such practices by rejecting priority claims due to subject matter change and rejecting amendments that changed the nature of the original design.

The rationale for excluding intangible designs was never explicitly stated, but some opinions attributed it to practical difficulties in identifying, examining, and enforcing rights for such designs.

The 2025 Amendment: A Paradigm Shift Effective 1 April 2026

Under the amended 2025 IP Law, Article 4.13 introduces a broader definition: “An industrial design is the external appearance of the whole or a part of a physical or non-physical product, expressed in shapes, lines, colors, or a combination thereof, and visible during the exploitation of the product’s utility.”

This change expands protection to:

  • Partial designs (inseparable parts of products); and
  • Intangible designs (e.g., GUIs, digital patterns, virtual objects).

This amendment represents a major evolution in Vietnam’s industrial design protection system, driven by the objectives of (i) adaptation to technological advancements—particularly the rise of digital and electronic products; (ii) alignment with global trends in industrial design protection; and (iii) enhanced applicant rights and incentives for creativity in design innovation.

While the expansion will undoubtedly create challenges in drafting guidelines, examination procedures, enforcement, and dispute resolution, it is considered a necessary step to meet the government’s policy goals and respond to the rapid pace of societal and technological change.

Outlook

The inclusion of Class 32 designs under Vietnam’s IP Law marks a significant milestone, opening the door for protection of intangible designs such as GUIs, logos, and digital patterns. This progressive move not only harmonizes Vietnam’s IP framework with international standards but also fosters innovation in the digital economy.

As implementation unfolds, design applicants can file and obtain protection for their partial designs and Class 32 designs in Vietnam. Moreover, refusals of such designs filed internationally under the Hague Agreement should no longer pose an issue.

This article first appeared in Managing Intellectual Property.

Related Professionals

Practices

Intellectual Property

Location

RELATED INSIGHTS​ 

May 9, 2023
On April 26, 2023, the Vietnamese government issued Decree No. 17/2023/ND-CP detailing some articles and enforcement measures of the 2022 Intellectual Property Law with respect to copyright and related rights (Decree 17). Decree 17 took immediate effect upon issuance, and provides long-awaited, necessary guidance for implementation of the IP Law, which took effect on January 1, 2023. The official regulations set out significantly new requirements on copyright and related rights in comparison to the draft version of the decree circulated in 2022. Some of the most critical provisions include the following: Detailed Definitions of Terms Decree 17 provides detailed definitions of copyrightable subject-matters, including “literary and scientific works, textbooks, curricula, and other written works”; “lectures, speeches, and other talks”; “journalistic works”; “musical works”; “cinematographic works”; and others. Exceptions to Copyright Infringement Section 1 of Chapter III sets out the exceptions to copyright infringement, including, among others: Reasonable reproduction of part of a work using a copying device for scientific research, personal study, or non-commercial purposes. Using a work in official activities of state agencies. Using reasonable extracts/excerpts of a work. Using a work in library activities for non-commercial purposes Reasonable reproduction of part of a performance, audio recording, video recording, or broadcast. Enforcement Against Infringements The entire Chapter VI covers the protection of copyright and related rights to a very detailed extent, including: Presumption of copyright and related rights; Technological measures to protect rights; and The basis for determination of subjects entitled to copyright and related rights protection. The mechanisms to determine infringements and damages are clearly provided, including: Grounds for determining the nature and extent of infringement; Principles for the determination of damages; and The definition and calculation of mental loss, property damage, decline in income and profit, and loss of business opportunities. Decree 17 also adds a
Read More
May 8, 2023
When a company promotes its products or services, it will naturally use laudatory terms or phrases to describe their quality. However, in Vietnam, such use could constitute trademark infringement, as many terms with a descriptive or laudatory nature have been granted registration as trademarks, often without disclaimers. Examples include “Nuoc Mam Me Lam” (“Fish sauce made by mom”) under Reg. No. 392575 for fish sauce, “Drink it, Wear it” under Reg. No. 387444 for clothing retail services, and “Making Cancer History” under Reg. No. 388177 for healthcare services. Imagine a case where a hospital advertises that its cancer treatment services can help “make cancer history.” Would such advertisement be considered trademark infringement of the registered mark “Making Cancer History”? Fair use or infringement? Under the doctrine of descriptive fair use commonly adopted worldwide, a third party, even a direct competitor, may use another party’s descriptive trademark to describe its own products or services, even if such mark has acquired secondary meaning. However, that use can only be in a purely descriptive manner. Descriptive fair use requires that the mark being used actually describes a quality or attribute of the goods or services, rather than indicating the source. The descriptive words must also be used in the normal course of language. In addition, the mark must be used in the text portions of an advertisement and not as a banner or in any other manner that sets it apart from the other words in the sentence or paragraph in which it is used. To be nominative fair use, such use should accurately refer to a trademark owner or to goods or services and cannot be misleading or defamatory, or imply endorsement or sponsorship by a trademark owner. Vietnam does not have any detailed regulation on fair use of descriptive marks.
Read More
May 8, 2023
Myanmar’s long-awaited first-to-file trademark registration system came into full effect on April 26, 2023, with the “grand opening” of the country’s Intellectual Property Department (IPD). This followed the issuance of the Trademark Rules and other related notifications at the beginning of April, in conjunction with the Trademark Law coming into force. Full enforcement of this law is a milestone in Myanmar’s long quest to establish a functioning, modern framework for trademarks in particular and for IP in general. The Trademark Law was passed in 2019 as part of suite of laws meant to modernize the country’s treatment of IP rights. Previously, IP rights holders in Myanmar relied on outdated systems based largely on laws from the colonial period under British rule. For example, brand owners could achieve some measure of protection through establishing use in the country and recording their marks with the Office of Registration of Deeds (ORD). However, these protections were limited and did not provide the same level of security and legal recourse as a comprehensive trademark registration system. Without a proper system in place, businesses were vulnerable to infringement and counterfeiting, which could be detrimental to their reputation and bottom line. The new Trademark Law will provide much-needed protection to brand owners and encourage innovation and investment in Myanmar, bringing the country in line with other Southeast Asian nations that have already implemented modern IP laws and systems, such as Thailand and Vietnam. Features of the Trademark Law In addition to the increased protection and streamlined filing procedures, the Trademark Law offers a range of other salient features: Administration: The core government ministry administering the new Trademark Law is the Ministry of Commerce. Four other ministries—the Ministry of Information; the Ministry of Industry; the Ministry of Agriculture, Livestock and Irrigation; and the Ministry of Education—are
Read More
April 25, 2023
As in many countries around the world, IP laws in Southeast Asia do not currently specify whether works generated by artificial intelligence (AI) are protected by copyright, and there is also uncertainty surrounding the issue of ownership with respect to works created by AI. While changes to the IP legal framework are expected to respond to the rapid development of AI technologies, existing copyright laws of most countries in Southeast Asia explicitly impose the requirement of a human author for copyright protection to arise. AI-Generated Works and the Law This is similar to the position in the United States, where the US Copyright Office issued a policy statement in March 2023 reiterating the US Copyright Act’s requirement of human authorship to register copyright works. The policy document states that when an AI technology determines the expressive elements of the output, the generated materials do not fulfil the human authorship requirement. However, the US Copyright Office also clarified that certain works containing AI-generated materials may nonetheless contain sufficient human authorship for a copyright claim, such as when a human selects or arranges the AI-generated materials in a sufficiently creative way for the resulting work as a whole to constitute an original work of authorship, or when an artist modifies material originally generated by AI technology to a degree that meets the standard for copyright protection. This is distinguishable from the position in countries such as the UK and Hong Kong, where absent specific provisions addressing AI-generated works, such works may arguably be considered by some as computer-generated works, with authorship assigned to the person who arranges for creation of the work. New Challenges from Generative AI The ongoing legal uncertainties surrounding the ownership and protection of AI-generated works create practical challenges for businesses that use or develop generative AI tools.
Read More