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​ 

July 21, 2026
Thailand’s Ministry of Digital Economy and Society (MDES) published a notification establishing an expedited court-ordered takedown mechanism for online content in cases of “urgent necessity.” The notification, which was issued on July 17, 2026, under the Computer Crime Act B.E. 2550 (2007), as amended, took effect the following day. It significantly expands the categories of content subject to rapid government-initiated removal. Content Categories Subject to Takedown The notification defines “urgent necessity” (section 20, paragraph 5, of the Computer Crime Act) as circumstances where any delay in suppressing computer data may impact national security, religion, the monarchy, good morals, social culture, or public order. In this regard, it establishes four broad categories of content: Computer Crime Act offenses. National security offenses. IP and other criminal offenses, where it is contrary to public order or good morals and a competent officer has requested its suppression. Content contrary to public order or good morals, a broad residual category encompassing 14 subcategories approved by the Computer Data Screening Committee. The fourth category is the most expansive. Its 14 subcategories include: Content defaming, mocking, satirizing, or devaluing the monarchy. Online gambling advertising or facilitation. Offering illegal firearms for sale. Offering baraku (hookah) products or e-cigarettes for sale. Offering cannabis inflorescences or processed cannabis products for sale. Advertising or soliciting prostitution. Content inciting violence, hatred, or social division. Unauthorized overseas employment advertising. Offering boiled kratom juice for sale. Online sale or advertising of alcoholic beverages. Content satirizing or degrading Buddhism. Money lending at interest rates exceeding legally prescribed limits. Advertising or disseminating information about surrogacy services. Forgery of documents, cards, or official documents. Enforcement Procedure In cases of urgent necessity, a competent official assigned by the MDES permanent secretary must file a petition with supporting evidence to the court with jurisdiction, requesting an order to
Read More
July 15, 2026
Ambush marketing refers to a strategy in which a business associates itself with an event, campaign, or brand without paying for official sponsorship rights. The tactic is most visible in sports, concerts, and festivals, where official sponsors have invested substantially for exclusivity. Ambush marketers may use suggestive wording, event-themed imagery, athlete endorsements, venue-adjacent promotions, or social media campaigns implying a commercial connection with the event. Common Forms of Ambush Marketing Ambush marketing typically takes one of the following forms: Direct ambushing: using event names, logos, or mascots suggesting authorization Coattail ambushing: sponsoring an athlete or broadcaster connected with the event Subtle ambushing: themed advertising, venue-adjacent campaigns, or similar visual cues The legal analysis in each case turns on whether the marketing crosses from permissible event-based advertising into infringement, passing off, deception, or wrongful exploitation of goodwill, and the risk assessment is necessarily fact-specific. Thailand has no dedicated ambush marketing statute, so legality depends on execution. A campaign that merely comments on a public event may be permissible, but one that uses protected marks, creates consumer confusion, misrepresents sponsorship status, or makes unsubstantiated claims may trigger liability under various Thai laws, as laid out below. Ambush Marketing and Thailand’s Trademark Act The Trademark Act B.E. 2534 (1991) is the primary tool for addressing campaigns that use registered trademarks, event names, logos, mascots, or confusingly similar signs. The law gives registered trademark owners the exclusive right to use their mark for registered goods, and infringement risk arises when a nonsponsor uses an event mark or a confusingly similar sign in advertising. Even referential or playful use may create liability if it causes public confusion as to sponsorship or commercial connection. The law also preserves passing-off claims for unregistered marks. This matters because event names, taglines, or mascots may not always be
Read More
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