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​ 

August 21, 2025
Although the “passing off” principle has sometimes faced criticism for potentially broadening trademark protection—particularly in cases involving unregistered or unconventional marks like shapes, scents, or sounds—it serves an essential purpose. It safeguards the rights of business owners and shields consumers from deception, ensuring fair competition and reflecting the realities of modern commerce. What is passing off, and why is registrability not required? The passing-off principle is a legal concept rooted in English law, aimed at preventing a person from falsely representing or using a mark similar to another’s in a way that causes consumers to mistakenly believe the goods or services come from the same source. Under Thai law, the passing-off principle is provided under Section 46 of the Thai Trademark Act, which states: No person shall be entitled to bring legal proceedings to prevent or to recover damages for the infringement of an unregistered trademark. The provisions of this Section shall not affect the right of the owner of an unregistered trademark to bring legal proceedings against any person for passing off goods as those of the owner of the trademark. The passing-off principle can be interpreted as a practical legal concept. It does not require proof that the mark is registrable or meets the registrability criteria under trademark law. It is sufficient to show that the mark has established goodwill and that the other party’s use of a similar mark is likely to confuse consumers, making it a straightforward and effective tool for protecting brand assets. Requiring a claimant to prove that an unregistered mark could have been registered would undermine the very function of passing off. The doctrine was conceived precisely to fill the gaps left by the registration system. Imposing registrability criteria would nullify its function and leave many commercially valuable identifiers unprotected. If the
Read More
August 15, 2025
Indonesia’s Directorate General of Intellectual Property (DGIP) has introduced a temporary feature in its online filing system to accommodate the submission of annual patent working statements. The requirement to submit these annual working statements was introduced under the amended Patent Law enacted on October 28, 2024, but the implementing regulation has still not been issued. Annual Working Statements Article 20A of the amended Patent Law requires all patentees to submit an annual statement regarding the implementation of their patents in Indonesia. This obligation applies to all active patents, regardless of when they were granted. The annual working statement declares the status of implementation of the patented invention within Indonesia. Acceptable forms of implementation include: Manufacturing the patented product (whether commercialized or not) Utilizing the patented process (whether commercialized or not) Importation Licensing If the patent has not yet been implemented in Indonesia, the DGIP provides an option to indicate: “The mentioned registered patent has not been implemented in Indonesia.” The statement must be made using the official template provided by the DGIP through the online filing system. Submission The working statement must be submitted annually no later than December 31 of each calendar year. No supporting documents are needed for the submission apart from the signed form itself. A color scanned copy will suffice; the original document is not required. There is currently no official fee for submitting the working statement. While the submission process may eventually align with annuity fee payments, the current process remains separate due to the pending implementing regulation. The submission process may be subject to change upon issuance of the implementing regulation, which is under discussion and expected in the coming months. In the interim, the DGIP accepts submissions of overdue working statements, allowing patentees to fulfill their obligations retroactively. This flexibility is expected
Read More
July 31, 2025
The Madrid System for international trademark registration provides the opportunity for a simplified and cost-effective way to register trademarks in multiple countries through a single application. Indonesia joined the Madrid System in 2018, and in 2024 alone, it received over 8,600 applications through this system. Despite the system’s effectiveness, it is important for trademark owners to be aware of the potential risks of refusal that can arise during the process of registration. Trademark applicants must pay close attention to these critical points when designating Indonesia. Appointing a Local Representative to Respond An applicant or representative of an international registration (IR) application that has been provisionally refused must appoint a local Indonesian representative in order to submit a response to the provisional refusal. This appointment is solely for the purpose of responding to the refusal in Indonesia; it is not necessary if the IR has not received any rejection. Furthermore, the local representative should not be registered with WIPO, as doing so would affect representation across all designated countries. Timing When it comes to calculating the deadline for responding to a provisional refusal, there is a discrepancy between the methods used by the DGIP and WIPO. Under the Indonesian Trademark Law, trademark owners can file a response within 30 working days, excluding weekends and national holidays. However, the WIPO cover letter accompanying the DGIP’s provisional refusal notice specifies both the start date and the deadline for responding to the notification, which is calculated as 30 calendar days, including weekends and national holidays. Therefore, a response to the provisional refusal of IR should be submitted in accordance with the WIPO cover letter to prevent any formality issue. Grounds for Refusal After an IR application is published in Indonesia’s Trademark Gazette, it undergoes substantive examination by the Directorate General of Intellectual Property (DGIP) examiners. The
Read More
July 30, 2025
Artificial intelligence (AI) model training and data scraping are essential processes in the development of modern AI systems. AI model training involves using large datasets to teach machine learning algorithms to recognize patterns, make predictions, or generate new content. Data scraping refers to the automated extraction of information from websites or digital sources, often to assemble the vast datasets required for effective AI training. As these practices become more widespread, questions about the legality of using third-party content—especially copyrighted works—have become increasingly important. In Thailand, the legal landscape for AI developers is shaped primarily by the Copyright Act, which presents unique challenges due to the absence of a fair-use exception. This article examines the copyright-related risks and legal uncertainties facing AI developers under Thailand’s current copyright law and practices, offering strategic guidance for navigating this complex environment. Copyright Risks in AI Scraping and Training Thailand’s Copyright Act does not provide a broad fair use or fair dealing exception, unlike some other jurisdictions, such as the United States. This absence has significant consequences for AI developers: No general defense for AI training: Any use of copyrighted material for AI model training is presumed to be infringing unless a specific, narrow statutory exception applies or explicit permission is obtained from the rights holder. There is no general legal basis for using copyrighted works in AI training without authorization. Increased rights clearance burden: Developers must identify and secure licenses for every copyrighted work included in their training datasets. Given the scale and diversity of data required for effective AI models, this process can be both impractical and costly. Legal ambiguity and litigation risk: The lack of clear statutory guidance or case law leaves developers in a legal gray area. There is no established precedent clarifying whether certain uses of copyrighted material for
Read More