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

Subscribe to Updates
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.

Download Full Article
Related Professionals

Practices

Intellectual Property

Location

RELATED INSIGHTS​ 

October 3, 2025
In Thailand, the rise in online intellectual property infringement has prompted authorities to strengthen enforcement efforts, including the use of website-blocking orders under Section 20(3) of the Computer Crime Act B.E. 2560 (2017) (CCA). This provision authorizes the Ministry of Digital Economy and Society (MDES), with court approval, to block or remove computer data that constitutes a criminal offence under IP law. Since its implementation, the procedure has undergone several developments, which is an encouraging sign of progress. Website-blocking procedure In practice, website-blocking orders under Section 20(3) of the CCA are primarily used for copyright and trademark infringement. While such orders are legally applicable to patent infringement, their use remains challenging due to the difficulty of proving infringement through administrative procedures. The website-blocking procedure begins when an IP owner identifies online infringing content. For copyright infringement, which is considered a compoundable offence, the IP owner is required to first file a police report with the specialized police unit known as the Economic Crime Suppression Division (ECD) prior to filing the website-blocking application with the Department of Intellectual Property (DIP). For trademark infringement cases, the application can be filed directly with the DIP without a prior police report. The DIP reviews the evidence and, if infringement is confirmed, forwards it to the MDES for further consideration. If the case is deemed valid, the MDES requests a court order to block the infringing website. Once granted, the MDES notifies the internet service providers (ISPs) to block access to the specified website. Website blocking procedure in Thailand Recent advancements in website-blocking actions Seamless collaboration through digital integration. Thailand has made significant progress in digitizing its website-blocking procedures to improve efficiency and transparency. At present, all website-blocking applications and supporting evidence must be submitted in electronic format. These systems have significantly reduced processing
Read More
September 24, 2025
Online shopping in Thailand is more accessible than ever, with global platforms, local social media shops, and entertainment-driven social commerce enabling instant purchases. However, this convenience comes with rising concerns over digital intellectual property (IP) infringement, including counterfeit goods, pirated content, and unauthorized brand usage. At first glance, online platforms appear to offer quick solutions. Most major e-commerce sites, social media channels, and social commerce platforms provide “notice and takedown” systems, where IP owners can file complaints and request the removal of listings that infringe IP rights, such as trademarks and copyrights. These tools are certainly useful, as seeing a fake product vanish from a platform feels like progress. But the reality is less reassuring. The counterfeit goods themselves remain in warehouses, markets, or shops, ready to be resold. Sellers whose accounts are taken down often return within days under new names or accounts. In other words, a takedown is like cutting weeds without pulling out the roots: they always grow back. While notice and takedown tools are widely available and can be managed internally by most IP owners, their impact is often short-lived. IP owners seeking more effective, lasting protection need to take a more strategic and multilayered approach. The same applies to online piracy. Unauthorized streaming websites that offer free access to movies, TV shows, or sports broadcasts have become widespread in Thailand. To combat this, rightsholders can request website blocking under the Computer Crime Act, through the Ministry of Digital Economy and Society and the courts. Once requests are approved, internet service providers are ordered to block access to infringing sites. Blocking orders can be effective in disrupting large-scale piracy operations, but they also face limitations—pirate sites frequently reappear under new domains. Strategic Protection Whether the infringing material is physical counterfeit goods or intangible streaming content,
Read More
September 4, 2025
On June 6, 2025, the Superior People’s Court in Hanoi overturned a non-use cancellation decision by the Intellectual Property Office of Vietnam, a rare and impactful occurrence. In a ruling that may help clarify the enforcement of Vietnam’s IP Law, the court held that valid trademark use can be established through commercial arrangements where the brand owner maintains actual control over the use of the mark, and is not confined to relationships governed by a so-called “formal license agreement. Background: Cross-Border Use, Local Challenge A Singapore company owns a well-known brand of consumer products that has gained recognition across Southeast Asia. In recent years, the brand has been targeted by several unauthorized trademark filings in Vietnam. In one such instance, a local Vietnamese trading company—previously linked to the production and export of counterfeit goods to neighboring countries—filed a non-use cancellation against the Singapore company’s mark and sought to register it under its own name. If the cancellation had been upheld, it would have enabled a complete hijacking of the brand. The IP holder operates in Vietnam through a structured cross-border supply chain. Under an agreement between two related foreign entities, one of which managed regional operations, production orders were placed through a designated Vietnamese company. While the Vietnamese manufacturer was not a party to the agreement, its role in using the mark was recognized and governed by internal and commercial documentation. The Vietnamese manufacturer lawfully obtained the necessary permits, regulatory approvals, and customs clearances for producing the goods in Vietnam. These activities were supported by banking records and internal communications, evidencing active, continuous use of the mark in Vietnam. However, the IP Office concluded that this use did not meet the statutory criteria because the Vietnamese manufacturer did not have a direct license agreement with the brand owner, as
Read More
August 25, 2025
Indonesia’s current regulations on franchises, as stipulated under Government Regulation No. 35/2024 on Franchising and its implementing regulation, Ministry of Trade (MOT) Regulation No. 71/2019 regarding Implementation of Franchising, highlight fundamental changes in franchise registration. These changes have introduced additional complexities and challenges in the franchise registration procedure, making it more difficult for franchise owners to navigate the process. New procedure Franchise applications are still submitted through the Online Single Submission (OSS) portal of the Capital Investment Coordinating Board (BKPM). However, the new procedure requires each applicant, including foreign franchisors, to have an OSS account and a business registration number (NIB) issued by BKPM. An application for franchise registration must be submitted under the applicant’s own account—submissions can no longer be made through the account of a consultant. Once a franchise application is submitted, the authority will distribute the submission to the MOT—the authorized ministry for franchise registration. Any notification or decision upon the registration made by the MOT will be available in the OSS system. Applicants should regularly monitor the status of the franchise application because no notifications will be sent to applicants to alert them of any deficiency. Here is the summary of the new procedure for franchisors: Notable Requirements The disclosure document, or prospectus, is the key focus for the MOT in examining a franchise registration for a franchisor. This document is subject to thorough scrutiny by the MOT to ensure that all mandatory information meets the requirements set in the franchise regulations. The current regulations specifically require that the mandatory clause “business system” in the prospectus cover operational standards and procedures, which should include human resource management, administration, operational management, standard operating methods, business location selection, business premises design, employee requirements, and marketing strategies. Other clauses that are equally important to pay attention to are:
Read More