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​ 

November 21, 2023
In this article originally published by World Trademark Review, Tilleke & Gibbins senior associate David Mol shares advice on how to collaborate effectively with customs officials at Cambodian border points and ports, offering a guide on how to successfully monitor for—and enforce against—counterfeit and grey market goods.   Can rights holders record trademark and brand-related IP information with Customs and, if so, how?   At present, there is no formal customs IP recordal system in place in Cambodia. However, rights holders may consider: a request letter to Customs; or recordal of an exclusive distributorship. Request letter to Customs A request letter to Customs would be an effective measure in cases where a rights holder is aware of a specific customs checkpoint that is being used to smuggle infringing goods. The rights holder may request to set up a meeting with Customs at the checkpoint to provide officials with: guidance on the issue; the IP rights involved; and information on product identification. The rights holder may further request the official’s assistance in monitoring shipments for certain goods. Customs has been open and cooperative in the past, setting up direct communication lines between rights holders and border officials. Officials then: monitor shipments; exchange sighting reports; and set up inspections where applicable. However, this option is not directly regulated under any laws or regulations, and can only be considered as an ad hoc approach in cases where the rights holder is aware of issues at a specific checkpoint. We usually do not recommend using this approach to alert all checkpoints in Cambodia, as it is rather time-intensive, requiring close cooperation and active liaison with officials. Instead, targeting specific checkpoints has proven to work in our experience. A request letter to Customs may apply to all types of intellectual property. However, a recently issued regulation that addresses suspensions
Read More
October 30, 2023
A Resounding Victory The last days of October brought some excitement for one of the leading pharmaceutical companies in the world, Novartis, when its patent litigation case in Vietnam against a local generic manufacturer, which had stretched over more than eight years, finally came to an end. The background of this case is quite simple. Novartis was the owner of a patent protecting the active ingredient vildagliptin, which was commercialized through its Galvus® product, a medicine used to treat type 2 diabetes. In 2015, the company found that a drug manufacturer in Vietnam’s Binh Duong province on the outskirts of Ho Chi Minh City was producing a medicinal product containing the vildagliptin active ingredient—an infringement of its patent. Novartis first submitted a request to the Ministry of Science and Technology (MOST) to apply administrative sanctions on this infringer. Subsequently, the MOST Inspectorate concluded in July 2015 that the defendant had committed patent infringement and ordered them to stop producing the infringing drugs and recall them from the market. However, the defendant did not comply with the conclusion, and sought an appeal while it continued to produce the infringing medicine. Realizing that administrative sanctions were not strict enough to deter the defendant, Novartis continued to protect its legitimate rights and interests by initiating a lawsuit at the provincial court where the defendant was headquartered, Binh Duong. Novartis claimed that the defendant had infringed the patent and requesting the defendant to compensate for damages at the highest level allowed by law, pay attorney fees, and publicly apologize to Novartis in specialized newspapers. This began a long journey full of challenges that finally ended with the second appellate judgment declared by the High People’s Court of Ho Chi Minh City on October 17, 2023. The court accepted all claims raised by the
Read More
October 30, 2023
In its ongoing efforts to enhance Indonesia’s intellectual property e-filing system, the country’s Directorate General of Intellectual Property (DGIP) has consistently introduced improvements to the online system. In recent months, the DGIP has implemented several noteworthy changes that differ from previous versions of the system. These changes bear significant importance for applicants who intend to file IP applications, and include the changes highlighted below for designs, patents, and trademarks. Designs File format and view limitation. Under current rules, all design drawings must be submitted in JPG format, and only one view is permitted per page. No refund requests. Once the application payment has been made, refund requests are no longer an option. Figure limitation. Only one figure is allowed for each design view, with an exception made for reference and perspective views. Patents Title consistency. If an invention is already registered outside Indonesia through the Patent Cooperation Treaty (PCT), the title in the Indonesian registration application must match the title registered with the World Intellectual Property Organization (WIPO). Bibliographic data matching. In national phase applications, it is essential for all bibliographic data to mirror the information from the PCT international phase as listed on WIPO’s website. This conformity is crucial for a seamless application process. Excess claim fees. A new requirement stipulates that excess claim fees must be paid at the time of filing the patent application. Trademarks Goods and services selection. The DGIP requires applicants to choose their desired goods and services from a predefined list, and the provided list is not editable. The DGIP periodically updates this list, but there is no fixed schedule for these updates. Moreover, these updates can sometimes entail removal of items from the list, and requesting the addition of goods or services is often challenging, especially if a similar alternative already exists
Read More
October 25, 2023
Indonesia and South Korea have opened a patent prosecution highway (PPH) mechanism that allows applicants to seek patent protection in Indonesia by basing their application on a granted Korean patent. The PPH was opened following the conclusion of two memoranda of understanding (MOUs) between Indonesia’s Directorate General of Intellectual Property (DGIP) and the Korean Intellectual Property Office (KIPO) on September 8, 2023. One of the MOUs is about comprehensive cooperation in the field of intellectual property, while the other spells out the details of the PPH mechanism. When requested, the PPH will help applicants speed up the examination process for their patent applications in Indonesia using the substantive examination results issued by the KIPO. This can substantially shorten the amount of time required for the examination process period from approximately two years (from the substantive examination request) to less than one year (from the PPH request). Similar to a PPH request under Indonesia’s existing PPH agreement for Japanese patents, applicants can file a PPH request based on a granted Korean patent after the Indonesian patent application is published and before the issuance of the first office action. Requests must be accompanied by the official fee of IDR 5 million (approx. USD 315) for filing a PPH request. The scope of cooperation between the DGIP and KIPO, as described by the other MOU, includes increasing the countries’ capacity, framework, protection, inspection, and utilization of intellectual property, as well as other cooperative activities. The countries will also exchange information on how to increase public awareness about the importance of protecting intellectual property. For more information on this new bilateral cooperation, or on any aspect of patent protection in Indonesia, please contact Tilleke & Gibbins at [email protected] or +6221 2971 8088.
Read More