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 25, 2023

New Decree Guides Vietnam’s IP Law on Industrial Property Rights

Subscribe to Updates

On August 23, 2023, the Vietnamese government issued Decree No. 65/2023/ND-CP detailing and guiding the implementation of some articles of the 2022 Intellectual Property Law with respect to the establishment and protection of industrial property rights (“Decree 65”). Decree 65 took immediate effect upon issuance, replacing Decree No. 103/2006/ND-CP and a part of Decree No. 105/2006/ND-CP, and provides long-awaited, necessary guidance for implementation of the IP Law, which took effect on January 1, 2023. Some of the most critical provisions of Decree 65 include the following:

 

Establishment of Industrial Property Rights

Procedures for Establishment: The procedures for the establishment of industrial property rights are set out in Decree 65, rather than in a lower-level circular. These include the procedures related to PCT applications for inventions and Madrid applications for trademarks, and the (newly added) procedures related to Hague applications for industrial designs. Decree 65 also provides the details of the procedure for security control of inventions, including an annex listing the technical fields deemed to affect national security.

The decree confirms that registration certificates can be issued in electronic form and in paper form. However, hard copy registration will only be issued under explicit request in the application. It also provides various new forms, including application forms for patents, designs, integrated circuits, and geographical indications, among others.

Right Holder, Content, and Limitation of Rights: Further details are provided on the rights and responsibilities of organizations and individuals who use geographical indications. Decree 65 also details the procedure for compensation of patent owners due to the delay in granting marketing authorization of pharmaceutical products, stipulated in Article 131a of the IP Law.

Secret Inventions: Decree 65 provides details for identifying and processing patent applications for secret inventions as well as procedures for decodifying inventions filed as secret inventions.

Amendment: Decree 65 makes clear that for amendment of a trademark specimen, only minor disclaimed elements can be removed, and only if such removal does not alter the distinctiveness of the registered mark. The decree also simplifies the documents required for amendment of trademark registration.

Assignment: Decree 65 adds a new provision regarding the limitation to the transfer of trademark rights that may cause confusion as to the properties or origin of the goods bearing the trademark.

Opposition: While both oppositions and third-party opinions can be submitted against national applications, there is no opposition procedure under Decree 65 for Madrid applications designating Vietnam. Only the third party opinion scheme is available for the application’s examination, as a source of reference.

 

Enforcement of Industrial Property Rights

Determination of Acts, Nature, and Extent of Infringement: Decree 65 introduces amendments to the definition of acts conducted on the internet considered as infringement in Vietnam with greater specificity. The grounds to determine the factors that constitute the infringement of patent, integrated circuit, industrial design, trademark, geographical indication, tradename, or geographical indication have been extended to include the Extract of the National Registrar of Industrial Property. The factors that constitute the infringement of trademark, tradename, and geographical indication have been amended to provide more specific details.

Determination of Damage: Decree 65 provides detailed grounds for the determination of property damage, including: decline in income and profit; loss of business opportunity; and reasonable costs to prevent and remedy damage. The decree also introduces detailed grounds for the determination of moral damage, reflecting a greater emphasis of the Vietnamese government on the value of moral rights.

Process of Handling IP Infringement: The handling of infringing goods is now implemented either upon the decision of the relevant authorities or upon the request of the owner of the IP rights. This brings an additional avenue for action, rather than the implementation of such measures solely at the discretion of the authorities.

The criteria for applying the method of distributing or utilizing infringing goods for non-commercial purposes have been revised to include additional requirements for the goods in question. The measure of confiscation has been eliminated.

Procedure for Control of Imported and Exported Goods Related to Industrial Property: Decree 65 adds specific details regarding the authority, order, and procedures for proactively suspending customs procedures of goods that show clear signs of infringement.

Assessment of Infringement: Decree 65 sets up new regulations on the procedure of conducting IP assessment (expert opinion).

 

Before Decree 65 was issued, in order to solve some issues in implementing the amended IP Law, the IP Office had to provide guidance for its internal procedures as well as information for IP practitioners to handle appropriately. It is expected that Decree 65 will definitively address these issues.

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