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

December 11, 2023

New Circular Provides Additional Guidance on Vietnam’s IP Law

Subscribe to Updates

On November 30, 2023, Vietnam’s Ministry of Science and Technology issued Circular No. 23/2023/TT-BKHCN detailing the implementation of some articles of the 2022 Intellectual Property Law (“IP Law”) and Decree No. 65/2023/ND-CP with respect to the establishment and protection of industrial property rights (“Circular 23”). Circular 23 took immediate effect upon issuance and provides further guidance and necessary clarifications for the implementation of the IP Law, which took effect on January 1, 2023. Some of the most critical provisions of Circular 23 related to the establishment of IP rights are discussed below.

Common Procedures

Circular 23 enumerates and details the cases where an application will be re-examined, as stipulated in various articles of the IP Law. The circular also adds the procedure in which a protection title can be partially granted, as newly stipulated in Article 118 of the IP Law. The procedure applies to patent, industrial design, and trademark applications.

Grounds for IP rights invalidation are further detailed in the new circular. On the patent side, it provides a list of situations where claims are deemed to go beyond the scope of the specification. For trademark registrations, it specifically defines two conditions in which “bad faith” grounds can be used to cancel a registration.

The circular sets out the procedure for opposing an application, as stipulated in the new Article 112a of the IP Law. Unlike previous regulations, Circular 23 sets out that the IP Office will inform the applicant of all oppositions (whether or not the opposition is grounded), except for obvious cases where the IP Office will consider the registrability of an opposed mark without informing the applicant.

To facilitate applicants and related parties, some timeframes have been extended from one to two months. This includes, for example, the time limit for the applicant and the opponent to respond to the other party’s opinion, the time limit for the applicant to submit documents clarifying doubtful information in a trademark application pursuant to the IP Office’s request, and others.

Patent

The long-awaited procedure and requirements for utilizing the search and examination results of a foreign IP office for a corresponding application is finally introduced under Circular 23. However, it is still unclear which offices will be on the list of applicable foreign IP offices, and it is up to the Ministry of Science and Technology to issue this list in the future.

Small changes are also set out to adapt to the modified regulations on the criteria of novelty and requests for substantive examination, among others.

Industrial Design

The definitions of “a part for assembly into a complex product” and “complex product”, as stipulated in Article 4 of the IP Law, are introduced. It is worth noting that the “part” and the “complex product” will be deemed different kinds of products.

Trademark

Circular 23 removes the potentially burdensome requirements for submission of evidence in cases where the IP Office doubts the control and certification function of applicants filing for collective or certification marks. In addition, the circular expressly clarifies that formality examination of such marks will not cover the examination of specific characteristics of the goods/services, or methods of assessment, control, protection, etc., of such goods or services.

The circular also adds some criteria for registration of sound marks, to be in line with the amended IP Law, and clarifies some helpful points, such as evidence proving the secondary meaning of a mark, and criteria to assess if two goods/services are considered similar.

Appeals

Circular 23 further specifies which decisions can or cannot be appealed, and also supplements some types of appeal requests which will not be acknowledged (i.e., where no illegal element of the appealed decision is pointed out, where the appealed objects are related to state secrets, etc.).

Under the previous circular, no new facts (i.e., those which had not yet been introduced before the appealed decision was issued) would be accepted in the appeal stage. However, under Circular 23, only facts that existed during examination but for some reason were not yet known or considered by the IP Office or any relevant parties are not accepted at the appeal stage. As such, it is still unclear if truly “new” arguments or information (such as recently issued letters of consent, cancellation decisions against citations, etc.) can be accepted in appeal requests.

Outlook

Despite some shortcomings, Circular 23 provides more comprehensive guidance than its predecessors on the establishment of IP rights in alignment with the 2022 IP Law. The new circular is expected to serve as a detailed manual on the application of the amended IP Law and will effectively shape the IP practice in Vietnam.

Related Professionals

Practices

Intellectual Property

Location

RELATED INSIGHTS​ 

September 21, 2026
Thailand’s first-to-file trademark system has a serious vulnerability: it lacks both an explicit mechanism for refusing bad-faith registrations and any means of invalidating them in court after the five-year limitation period has expired. While brand owners worldwide confront trademark squatting, Thailand’s statutory silence stands out, particularly in light of AIPPI’s 2017 Resolution Q249, which recommended that every jurisdiction provide clear tools to address bad faith at all stages of the trademark lifecycle. Nearly a decade later, Thailand has yet to act. This article proposes a concrete reform blueprint, drawing on the legislative models of China, the United Kingdom, and the European Union. The Statutory Gap Under the Thai Trademark Act B.E. 2534, no provision expressly authorizes examiners to reject an application on grounds of bad faith. Section 8(10) addresses well-known marks but offers no relief where the targeted mark lacks well-known status. Practitioners have resorted to Section 8(9)—which bars marks “contrary to public order, morality, or public policy”—as a workaround. However, this provision was designed to address the characteristics of the mark itself, not the applicant’s intent. Thai Supreme Court decisions have split on whether it can reach bad-faith conduct, creating persistent legal uncertainty. The gap extends beyond examination. Civil actions to cancel a bad-faith registration must be brought within five years—a deadline that frequently expires before foreign brand owners discover the squatted mark. Cancellation through the Board of Trademarks remains available but is slow, costly, and subject to court appeal, leaving bad-faith registrations in force during protracted proceedings. The system effectively rewards squatters and penalizes legitimate owners. Lessons from International Best Practices Several major jurisdictions have already closed this gap. China’s 2019 amendment to Article 4 of the Trademark Law introduced an absolute ground for refusal: “bad faith trademark applications without intent to use shall be rejected.” Bad
Read More
September 14, 2026
Myanmar’s first-to-file trademark registration regime under the Trademark Law 2019—which became fully operational in April 2023—provides mark owners with enhanced legal protection compared with the country’s former system. Correspondingly, the current system imposes more rigorous statutory requirements for obtaining, maintaining, and enforcing rights in marks. In this first-to-file trademark registration system, however, evidence of use remains particularly significant, as it may establish acquired distinctiveness, support a claim that a mark is well-known, and strengthen the owner’s position in both registration and enforcement proceedings. Accordingly, it can be said that this framework is underpinned by three key concepts: distinctiveness, well-known status, and, importantly, use of the trademark. Trademark Distinctiveness Under the Trademark Law, signs that lack distinctiveness are generally ineligible for mark protection. These signs include generic terms, basic shapes, unstylized single letters or numerals, and signs that merely describe the kind, quality, quantity, intended purpose, value, geographical origin, production time, or other characteristics of the relevant goods or services. However, a mark that would otherwise be refused on distinctiveness or descriptiveness grounds may be registrable if it has acquired distinctiveness through its use prior to the filing date. To show this, the applicant must demonstrate that the mark became distinctive to relevant consumers through continuous, exclusive, and good-faith use in trade within Myanmar. The burden of proving acquired distinctiveness rests with the mark owner. Accordingly, sufficient evidence demonstrating both use of the mark and the level of consumer recognition attained should be prepared in advance. Well-Known Mark Criteria Myanmar’s Trademark Rules, which govern the substantive examination of mark registration applications, establish criteria for determining well-known marks, aligned with international standards. Where an applicant claims well-known status—whether to overcome a refusal on relative grounds or to oppose a third party’s registration—the registrar will assess the claim based on the following
Read More
September 14, 2026
On August 23, 2026, Vietnam’s National Assembly passed Law No. 11/2026/QH16, amending the country’s Customs Law with effect from March 1, 2027. The amendments represent a substantial reform of Vietnam’s customs-based intellectual property enforcement regime. The reforms come amid considerable external pressure. In its 2026 Special 301 review, the US Trade Representative (USTR) designated Vietnam a “priority foreign country,” citing widespread counterfeiting, weak border enforcement, limited ex officio customs powers, and the absence of controls over goods in transit. Vietnam’s legislative response signals a commitment to bringing its border enforcement practices into line with international expectations. For IP rights holders operating in or through Vietnam, the amended law introduces several tools that substantially strengthen enforcement options at the border. Closing the Transit Gap One of the most consequential amendments is the extension of IP-related customs enforcement to goods in transit. Previously, Vietnam’s customs regime applied IP controls only to goods being imported or exported, a gap the USTR had specifically identified as enabling infringing goods to pass through Vietnamese ports with impunity. Vietnam’s geographic position as a logistics hub for Southeast Asia means that substantial volumes of goods transit its ports and free-trade zones. Extending enforcement to cover these shipments brings Vietnam closer to the standard set by the EU’s customs enforcement regulation and addresses a longstanding concern of multinational brand owners whose goods are frequently counterfeited in the region. Strengthened Suspension and Ex Officio Powers The amended law introduces a dual-track suspension mechanism (Article 73(2)). Customs authorities will suspend clearance upon request by an IP rights holder (or authorized representative) who provides evidence of IP ownership, evidence of infringement, and a financial guarantee. Customs can now proactively suspend clearance on an ex officio basis if, during inspection and monitoring, they discover “clear grounds” to suspect that imported, exported,
Read More
September 7, 2026
Indonesia’s Constitutional Court (Mahkamah Konstitusi) has reinstated a key provision limiting pharmaceutical patent protection, signaling a renewed commitment to balancing patent rights with public access to medicines. In its ruling to Case No. 255/PUU-XXIII/2025, the court partially granted a petition for judicial review of Law No. 65 of 2024, which had amended the country’s Patent Law, and ordered the restoration of a provision that had excluded certain pharmaceutical inventions from patentability. The decision took effect immediately upon its pronouncement at the court’s plenary session on August 28, 2026. Background The petition challenged the removal of article 4(f) from Law No. 13 of 2016 concerning Patents (Patent Law), as amended by Law No. 65 of 2024. Article 4(f) had excluded from patentability certain inventions relating to new uses of known substances. The petitioners argued that removing this provision would open the door to patent protection for second medical use inventions and facilitate patent evergreening—practices that can extend exclusivity periods, delay generic market entry, and reduce public access to affordable medicines. The petitioners included several patient advocacy and public-interest organizations: the Indonesian Dialysis Patients Community Association, the Indonesian Association of Drug Abuse Victims (PKNI), the Indonesian Pulmonary Hypertension Foundation (YHPI), the Rekat Peduli Indonesia Foundation, and the Indonesian Positive Women’s Association (IPPI), along with the Indonesia for Global Justice Association and four individual petitioners. The petitioners also challenged the constitutionality of the phrase “interested party” in article 70(1) of the Patent Law, arguing that it should be construed expressly to clarify who has standing to appeal a decision to grant a patent before the Board of Patent Appeal, and to allow a broader range of parties—such as patent holders, licensees, consumer organizations, prosecutors, aggrieved third parties, and others who may suffer direct or indirect harm from the grant of a patent—to
Read More