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​ 

June 24, 2026
Patent enablement requirements are provided under Article 102 of Vietnam’s Law on Intellectual Property (IP Law). In particular, a patent specification must “fully and clearly disclose the nature of the invention to such an extent that, based on the specification, a person having ordinary skill in the relevant art can implement the invention.” In pharmaceutical and biotechnology patents, this requirement is more complicated and subject to more rigorous assessment. The Patent Examination Guidelines (Guidelines) of the Intellectual Property Office of Vietnam (IP Office) were amended in March 2026 to introduce Annexes III and IV for the pharmaceutical and biotechnology sectors, in which Annex III provides detailed guidelines on the assessment of specification requirements. These amendments were made under a project for strengthening capacity in industrial property examination between the Japan International Cooperation Agency (JICA) and the IP Office. Annex III provides detailed instructions on how examiners assess enablement in a pharmaceutical or biotechnology application, and offers examples of acceptable and unacceptable descriptions with regard to the enablement aspect. Enablement Requirements in Pharma and Biotech Patents Article 12.7 of Circular 10/2026/TT-BKHCN (Circular 10) adds to the requirements of Article 102 of the IP Law that the description must demonstrate the novelty, inventive step, and industrial applicability of the technical solution. For pharmaceutical composition subject matters, Article 12.9 of Circular 10 sets out that the description must present the results of clinical trials and/or the pharmacological effects of the claimed pharmaceutical composition, and must include at least the following information: Substance/mixture used. Testing method (system) employed. Information on the test results. Correlation between the pharmacological effects obtained from the tests and the application of the pharmaceutical product in the prevention, diagnosis, and treatment of diseases. The Guidelines note that pharmacological study results should be presented in a quantified manner, and pharmacological
Read More
June 16, 2026
Since the implementation of the Trademark Law 2019 on April 1, 2023, Myanmar has operated under a modern first-to-file trademark system that brings its registration framework closer to international practice. As the new regime continues to develop in practice, applicants are increasingly required to navigate formal examination requirements, substantive objections, and procedural deadlines with greater precision. This article provides a high-level review of the trademark examination process in Myanmar, focusing on the principal stages from initial review to approval, the types of objections commonly raised by the Intellectual Property Department (IPD), and the key considerations for responding effectively. A clear understanding of these issues is essential for applicants seeking to secure registration efficiently and to mitigate avoidable delays or refusals. Examination Process: Key Stages Trademark applications filed with the IPD undergo two stages of review. Formality Examination The IPD first verifies compliance with procedural requirements, including: Correct Nice Classification Clear mark representation Accurate applicant details Clearly defined goods or services Representative details, if the application is filed by a representative Other formality requirements cover translation and transliteration of any non-English or non-Myanmar elements in the mark, color claim details, applicable disclaimers, and payment of official fees. Deficiencies result in an office action requiring correction within 30 days, which may be extended upon request. Registrability Examination The IPD also assesses registrability. A mark may be refused if it: Lacks distinctiveness Is descriptive or generic Misleads the public or violates public order/morality Contains prohibited state symbols Only compliant applications proceed to publication. Responding to Office Actions Applicants must respond within 30 days of notification from the IPD. Depending on the nature of the objection, strategies may include submitting legal arguments for distinctiveness, providing evidence of acquired distinctiveness, filing appropriate disclaimers, clarifying descriptions such as color claims, or amending the listed goods
Read More
June 15, 2026
The surge in AI development has led to a desperate demand for large, high-quality training data. However, real-world data can be expensive to collect, difficult to access, and often subject to strict privacy and regulatory constraints. Synthetic data, which consists of artificially generated records that replicate the statistical properties of real-world data without reproducing specific individuals’ information, provides an appealing solution by generating artificial datasets at scale without relying on identifiable personal information. It combines speed, cost efficiency, and regulatory compliance, making it a sensible alternative for organizations seeking to reduce risks while maintaining data utility. When properly anonymized, synthetic datasets may fall outside the scope of laws such as the EU’s General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR) or Thailand’s Personal Data Protection Act (PDPA), reducing compliance burdens while still supporting high-quality model training. However, relying on synthetic data without rigorous legal due diligence could be a strategic mistake. It replaces one set of known risks (scraping, direct privacy liability) with a new set of complex liabilities. The narrative that synthetic data is a “silver bullet” for privacy and IP compliance is dangerous and could be misleading. While synthetic data addresses data scarcity, it also introduces new legal uncertainties. Legal counsel should anticipate downstream risks arising from compromised data sources. Models trained on unlawfully obtained data may need to be decommissioned, even if their outputs appear lawful. What is synthetic data? Synthetic data refers to artificially generated information created using AI techniques such as deep learning and generative models. Instead of copying real records, it reproduces the statistical patterns and relationships found in the original dataset. Synthetic data generally falls into three categories: Fully synthetic data – Entirely new data points generated from learned patterns. The model studies the structure of the original data and produces records that resemble real-world
Read More
June 10, 2026
In March 2026, the Intellectual Property Office of Vietnam (IP Office) issued a decision refusing a trademark application after considering an opposition based primarily on copyright grounds. The outcome is noteworthy because the foreign brand owner had neither trademark registrations nor applications in Vietnam at the time the opposition was filed, and the IP Office has historically applied a stringent approach to oppositions relying on copyright. The Opposition Maurten is a well-known Swedish sports nutrition brand recognized globally for its innovative hydrogel technology, which is designed to help endurance athletes fuel more effectively without gastrointestinal discomfort. The brand’s distinctive logo is characterized by clean lines and a bold black-and-white color scheme, and has long been associated with the company’s performance products. The brand’s logo is displayed above. An identical mark was filed for registration by a Vietnamese trademark squatter. In 2023, a Vietnamese individual filed an application for registration of an identical mark (Application No. 4-2023-38668), a practice commonly observed in Vietnam as trademark squatting. The brand owner engaged Tilleke & Gibbins to assist with strategy and filing an opposition to the mark. At the time, Maurten had no trademark rights or meaningful use in Vietnam, and global marketing data showed only modest figures without any local presence. Thus, to convince the IP Office to refuse the squatter’s application, instead of relying on trademark rights or use evidence, the opposition strategy centered on the copyright protection of the logo itself, as copyright arises automatically in Vietnam upon creation of the work and does not require registration. (It is worth noting, however, that the IP Office has traditionally been cautious in accepting copyright as a basis for refusing trademark applications.) On September 24, 2024, an opposition was filed on three main grounds: confusing similarity, copyright infringement of the artistic work,
Read More