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

July 10, 2020

Interim IP Provisions Introduced Under EU-Vietnam Free Trade Agreement

Subscribe to Updates

The EU-Vietnam Free Trade Agreement (EVFTA) was ratified by Vietnam’s National Assembly on June 8, 2020, under Resolution No. 102/2020/QH14 (Resolution 102), and will take effect on August 1, 2020. Among the IP provisions in the EVFTA (Chapter 12), some will be applied directly upon the effective date of the agreement, without any changes to the current domestic laws and regulations, while others will be applied via the amendment of the IP Law. Until the amended IP Law is issued (which is expected to occur in 2021), temporary provisions from the EVFTA will be directly applied.

The latter are listed in Annex 3 to Resolution 102, and include the following:

1. Patent

Thanks to the EVFTA, Vietnam will for the first time have a mechanism to compensate pharmaceutical patent owners for the reduction in effective patent life resulting from unreasonable delays in the granting of the first marketing authorization (MA).

Resolution 102 details the form of compensation applicable in Vietnam from August 1, 2020, in which the fee for using a protected invention in the delay period will be waived. However, within 12 months from the issuing date of the MA, the patent owner must provide the Vietnam IP Office with a written confirmation on unreasonable delays issued by the Drug Administrative of Vietnam (DAV). According to Resolution 102, a delay is recognized if there is no feedback/opinion from the DAV on a submitted MA dossier more than 24 months after the submission date.

This is very good news for patent owners. However, this compensation is only a bonus measure, rather than an aid to overcome the gap between the EVFTA provisions and the IP Law on this issue. The EVFTA recommends compensation in the form of a patent term extension, rather than monetary compensation as Resolution 102 stipulates.

2. Design

Under the current IP Law, a design is defined as “the external appearance of a product expressed in shapes, lines, colors or any combination thereof.” As from the EVFTA’s effective date of August 1, 2020, the definition will be changed to “the external appearance of a finished product or a component for assembling a finished product. The external appearance is expressed in shapes, lines, colors or any combination thereof and is visible during use of the product.” [The changes are underlined.]

Briefly, provisions of the EVFTA require that for the design of a component of a product to be registrable for protection, it needs to be visible in the state when it is assembled in the finished product. According to the current regulations in Vietnam, a component of a product is considered to be a product and, therefore, it is usually visible. The above change is to differentiate a finished product from a component of a finished product, and then add a requirement that the component must be visible when assembled, to comply with the EVFTA.

3. Trademark

Under the current law, to stop the use of a registered mark that may mislead the public as to the nature, quality, or geographical origin of the goods or services bearing the mark, an invalidation action must be carried out, on the grounds that such trademark did not meet protection requirements at the time registration/protection was granted. However, the time limit for such invalidation action is only five years from the grant date. Once the time limit has expired, it is not possible to invalidate the mark.

In addition, the above invalidation action can only be applied if the misleading use had already occurred at the time of registration of the mark. If the misleading use occurred only after the mark’s registration, there are no legal grounds to request revocation of such mark.

Now the EVFTA has filled in this gap by providing that “any use of a registered trademark by the proprietor of the trademark or with his consent in respect of the goods or services for which it is registered that is liable to mislead the public, particularly as to the nature, quality or geographical origin of those goods or services shall make the trademark liable to revocation or alternatively be prohibited by relevant domestic law.”

As such, a revocation action can be carried out at any time during the valid term of the registered/protected trademark; and even if the mark did not mislead the public at the time of its registration, if its subsequent use can mislead the public, revocation is possible. This provision is helpful not only to protect consumers’ rights, but also to alert trademark owners about the appropriate use of their registered marks.

The above provision will be applicable as from the effective date of August 1, 2020, until the IP Law is amended to domesticize such provision.

For more details on the EVFTA’s IP provisions, please contact us at [email protected].

Related Professionals

Practices

Intellectual Property

Location

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
Read More
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
Read More
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.
Read More
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
Read More