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

August 2, 2019

IP Protection Strengthened Under Vietnam’s New Free Trade Agreement with EU

Managing Intellectual Property

On June 30, after nine years of negotiations, Vietnam and the European Union officially signed the landmark EU-Vietnam Free Trade Agreement (EVFTA), an ambitious and progressive agreement that includes important provisions on intellectual property.

In broad terms, the EVFTA’s Chapter 12 on Intellectual Property emphasizes the signatories’ adherence to applicable international treaties such as the TRIPS Agreement, the Paris Convention, and the Patent Cooperation Treaty, while introducing requirements to address weaknesses or gaps in the current practice. We highlight some of the most significant changes below.

Trademark

The most notable change for trademarks is the EVFTA’s introduction of a clearly defined “genuine use” requirement for defense against a non-use cancellation action. The introduction of this requirement may help to clear the register from marks that are not genuinely used by the mark owners. As Vietnam’s current IP Law does not specifically mention the scale or type of use required to defend a mark from a non-use cancellation, many marks survive based on token use only.

The EVFTA also allows the parties to provide that a trademark can be subject to termination if it has become the common (generic) name in the trade for the product or service for which it is registered, as a result of the proprietor’s acts or inactivity. While this type of termination already occurs in Vietnam, it is not specifically mentioned in the IP Law.

Geographical Indications

One of the most notable elements of the EVFTA is the parties’ agreement to implement systematic registration and protection of geographical indications (GIs). While GIs have long been a key interest and point of pride for EU members, they have been the subject of little attention in Vietnam. Under the EVFTA, 171 established EU GIs and 39 established Vietnamese GIs will be automatically protected without having to go through the standard registration process.

The EVFTA also allows coexistence or grace periods for the use of certain GIs such as “Gorgonzola” and “Champagne” in prior registered marks in Vietnam for cheese and wine, provided there is actual commercial use in good faith, which shows the effort to harmonize the rights of stakeholders from different jurisdictions.

Industrial Designs

Under the EVFTA, Vietnam’s system for protecting designs will soon see many changes, as the country must accede to the Geneva Act (1999) of the Hague Agreement Concerning the Registration of Industrial Designs within two years from the date the EVFTA takes effect. Vietnam’s participation in this agreement will benefit design applicants, who will have more options and more flexible requirements. For example, while Vietnam’s current IP Law only protects whole designs (the whole product or a separable part/component of a product), partial designs will also be protected under the EVFTA.

For designs of components of a complex product, only designs and features of designs that are visible during normal use of the product are protected under the EVFTA. (Normal use excludes maintenance, service, or repair work.) Although Vietnam has issued corresponding regulations on visibility of designs, the protection of visible features should be clarified, either by new laws or by changes in practice.

Patent

The EVFTA states that the parties will simplify and develop their patent registration procedures by referring to, among other things, the multilateral Patent Law Treaty (PLT), of which Vietnam is not yet a contracting state. Any future amendments to Vietnam’s patent laws will therefore likely be affected by the PLT.

Further, the EVFTA requires an effective mechanism for patent term extension/restoration as compensation for any unreasonable delays suffered by a patent owner while awaiting marketing authorization for a pharmaceutical product from an authorized office. As Vietnam has been cited as having “concerning marketing approval delays,” it is very likely that a mechanism will be added under which patent protection for human drugs can be extended beyond a 20-year term.

Enforcement of IP Rights

The EVFTA will push Vietnam toward a higher standard for IP enforcement by, for example, requiring customs authorities to use risk analysis techniques to actively target and identify shipments containing imported/exported goods suspected of infringing IP rights, and to provide such risk analysis information to rights holders. Currently, while customs authorities can be quite effective in border control measures, IP rights holders typically need to proactively engage them to ensure their full involvement.

Other enforcement issues raised by the EVFTA that will require changes in Vietnamese law and practice include the application of provisional measures and the presumption of authorship or ownership.

Outlook

Vietnam’s full compliance with the EVFTA, as well as the regional CPTPP agreement that took effect in January 2019, will require a comprehensive review and amendment of its IP Law, a major project that is already well underway. The amended IP Law is expected to be issued in 2020; in the interim, transitional regulations and guidelines are likely forthcoming.

RELATED INSIGHTS​ 

June 10, 2026
For multinational franchisors operating in Thailand, a key risk after franchise termination is that former outlets may continue operating in ways that could easily mislead consumers into believing they remain within the authorized network. To justify such operations, former franchisees often argue that the termination was invalid or ineffective. As a result, these cases are often treated as contractual disputes, making it difficult for franchisors to obtain injunctive relief before a final judgment confirms that the termination was lawful. Franchisors face significant commercial and reputational harm during lengthy proceedings, including consumer confusion, disruption to franchise restructuring, and damage to brand reputation and customer trust. In an encouraging development, the Thai court in a 2025 case responded to the problem of unauthorized post-termination franchise operations by granting interim relief, recognizing broader brand and consumer harm, and awarding substantial damages, highlighting a successful litigation strategy of framing the dispute not merely as a contractual termination issue but as trademark infringement causing ongoing commercial injury. The Subway Case From December 2024 to mid-2025, an unauthorized “Subway®” franchise operation in Thailand attracted substantial public and media attention. Reports and online discussions about unauthorized Subway® stores circulated widely after complaints arose about food quality and customer experience at certain outlets that were allegedly operating after their franchise rights had expired. Because these stores continued to use Subway® trademarks, trade dress, and overall commercial appearance, many consumers were unable to distinguish them from authorized operations, resulting in reputational risks and customer confusion that affected the franchisor’s brand and franchise system in Thailand. Subway treated this matter with the utmost seriousness and moved promptly to protect its brand, franchise system, and customers. It filed a civil action with the IP&IT Court seeking a permanent injunction and damages. During the proceedings, the court granted a preliminary injunction
May 22, 2026
Intellectual property specialists from Tilleke & Gibbins in Vietnam have contributed an updated Intellectual Property Transactions in Vietnam overview for Thomson Reuters Practical Law, an online publication that provides comprehensive legal guides for jurisdictions worldwide. The Vietnam overview was authored by Linh Thi Mai Nguyen, Thanh Phuong Vu, Chi Lan Dang, Son Thai Hoang, and Duc Anh Tran. The chapter provides a high-level examination of key aspects of IP transactions law in Vietnam, including IP assignment and licensing, research and development collaborations, IP in mergers and acquisitions (M&A), lending and taking security over intellectual property rights, settlement agreements, employee- and consultant-created IP, competition law, taxation, and non-tariff trade barriers. Key topics covered in the chapter include: IP assignment: Basis and formalities for assignments of patents, utility models, trade marks, copyright, design rights, trade secrets, confidential information, and domain names in Vietnam. IP licensing: Scope, formalities, and recordal requirements for licensing patents, trade marks, copyright, design rights, and trade secrets. Research and development collaborations: Treatment of improvements, derivatives, and joint ownership of IP, including exploitation and enforcement issues. IP aspects of M&A and security: Due diligence, warranties, transfer formalities, and taking security over intellectual property rights. Practical Law, a legal reference resource from Thomson Reuters, publishes a range of guides for hundreds of jurisdictions and practice areas. The Intellectual Property Transactions Global Guide is a valuable resource for legal practitioners seeking comparative insight into transactional IP issues across multiple jurisdictions. To view the latest version of the Intellectual Property Transactions in Vietnam overview, please visit the Practical Law website and enroll in the free Practical Law trial to gain full access.
May 13, 2026
Laos has significantly broadened its industrial property administrative review framework, most notably by extending it to cover copyright and related rights for the first time. Decision No. 0306/IC on the Administrative Resolution of Disputes Concerning Industrial Property Registration, New Plant Variety Registration, and Copyright and Related Rights Recordation took effect on April 24, 2026, replacing the previous rules from 2023, which had covered only industrial property and new plant variety matters. Decision No. 0306/IC governs how Laos’ Department of Intellectual Property (DIP) and provincial offices handle formal challenges to industrial property registrations and applications. The proceedings covered include oppositions to pending applications, appeals of refused applications, requests for cancellation of existing registrations, and—newly—disputes concerning the recordation and interpretation of copyright and related rights. These administrative proceedings within the DIP are heard by a government-appointed Administrative Dispute Resolution Committee, which functions similarly to the opposition and review boards found in other jurisdictions. Key Changes Decision No. 0306/IC covers four categories of administrative proceedings: Oppositions: Third-party challenges to a pending industrial property application before it is granted. Refusal appeals: Challenges to the DIP’s decision to refuse their application. Cancellation or deletion requests: Applications to invalidate an existing registered right on the grounds that it should not have been granted. Copyright and related rights disputes: Challenges to or interpretations of copyright and related rights recordations, including determinations of whether a work qualifies for copyright protection under Lao law. The most significant development is the committee’s new jurisdiction over copyright matters. The committee is now empowered to resolve disputes concerning copyright and related rights recordation—this includes the authority to determine whether a work qualifies for copyright protection and to interpret the scope of an existing recordation. Parties who believe a competitor has improperly recorded copyright over a work, or who wish to contest
April 30, 2026
Vietnam’s Decree No. 134/2026/ND‑CP, which took effect on 9 April 2026, plays an important role in detailing and implementing Vietnam’s Intellectual Property (IP) Law in the context of rapid digital transformation and the growing application of artificial intelligence (AI). The new decree provides comprehensive guidance on the application of copyright and related‑rights regulations, addressing key issues such as authorship, ownership, statutory exceptions and limitations, registration procedures, and enforcement mechanisms. Through these measures, Decree 134 seeks to achieve an appropriate balance between safeguarding the legitimate interests of rightsholders and fostering innovation, research, and technological advancement, thereby strengthening the state’s framework for the effective management, protection, and exploitation of intellectual property in the digital and AI‑driven environment. Some notable aspects of Decree 134 are discussed below. Copyright for AI-Created Works Decree 134 provides important guidance on the determination of copyright and related rights in works created with the assistance of AI. Article 5a reaffirms the principle that human creativity remains central to copyright protection, clarifying that copyright or related rights arise only where a human makes a substantial and decisive intellectual contribution, exercises effective control over the creative outcome, and assumes responsibility for the content and its legality. At the same time, the provision confirms that AI is regarded solely as a technological tool rather than a rights‑holding subject, thus ensuring consistency with the fundamental concepts of authorship and ownership under the IP Law. By introducing requirements on transparency, proof of human contribution, and compliance with AI‑specific labelling and technical marking obligations, Decree 134 establishes a clear and enforceable legal framework for the responsible use of AI in creative activities. Lawful Use of Copyrighted Texts and Data Article 37a of Decree 134 sets out the specific conditions under which copyrighted texts and data may be lawfully used for scientific research, experimentation,