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 23, 2024
The General Department of Customs and Excise (GDCE) in Cambodia’s Ministry of Economy and Finance launched a trial phase of its Intellectual Property Rights Recordation System (IPRRS) on September 1, 2024. The system compiles necessary information and documents related to intellectual property rights in the country, enabling customs authorities to swiftly access these documents and enhance their ability to identify and intercept potential parallel imports and infringing goods at the border. This will also better facilitate ex-officio actions by customs authorities. The system is currently referred to as being in a “trial phase” to support further amendments or updates to address any potential technical errors that may arise from public use. However, the IPRRS is already fully operational. Types of Recordation Currently, the IPRRS allows two types of recordation: Intellectual property recordation is available for trademarks, geographical indications, copyrights, and related rights that are protected in Cambodia. It allows IP owners, authorized representatives, and legal representatives to record information and documents relating to such rights, including information on possible or potential counterfeit goods, with the GDCE. Recordation will give customs authorities quicker access to the information and enable them to promptly take action against potential counterfeit or infringing goods. Exclusive distributorship recordation is meant to streamline the process that takes place after the Ministry of Commerce issues a notice of the recordation of exclusive rights. Under the current practice, after receiving a copy of a notice of the recordal of an exclusive distributorship issued by the Ministry of Commerce (MOC), the GDCE needs to enter the information into their system manually to enable them to promptly identify or stop potential parallel importation at the border. This reportedly causes delays in border officers’ access to the necessary information. Recordation through the IPRRS, on the other hand, allows local exclusive distributors
Read More
September 9, 2024
The popularity of the franchise business model has been growing rapidly in Southeast Asia in recent years, with some of the world’s top brands becoming common sights in the commercial districts and shopping malls of major regional cities in Cambodia, Indonesia, Laos, Myanmar, Thailand, and Vietnam. While for most countries in this part of the world, franchising has not been explicitly mentioned in legislation, well prepared franchise business operations can comfortably adapt to each country’s regulatory framework, and the growth is poised to continue even as the global retail sector redesigns and redoubles its efforts in the wake of the COVID-19 outbreak. In fact, the franchise business model, which is both global and hyper-local at once, is one of the most promising solutions that entrepreneurs are turning to in their quest to overcome the challenges of the new economic reality. The Regional Guide to Franchising Law in Southeast Asia provides key, up-to-date insights into the legal frameworks regulating franchise operations in these Southeast Asian countries, and helps brand owners understand the most relevant laws, authorities, and procedures for their business. Some of the essential topics covered for each jurisdiction include considerations in negotiating and designing franchise agreements, protecting intellectual property rights, and important information on judicial and arbitral procedures should a dispute arise between franchisor and franchisee. Practitioners from Tilleke & Gibbins’ offices in Cambodia, Indonesia, Laos, Myanmar, Thailand, and Vietnam contributed to guide—not only by providing legal expertise on the laws and mechanisms applicable in each jurisdiction, but also by examining strategies for establishing and running resilient franchise operations in Southeast Asia. The full guide can be accessed as a PDF through the button below.
Read More
August 30, 2024
As in many other countries, registered trademarks in Indonesia that are not used for a given period of time can be canceled. A recent decision (Decision No. 144/PUU-XXI/2023) from the country’s Constitutional Court has extended the non-use cancellation period from three years to five years, applicable from July 30, 2024. This ruling could have a major impact on trademark holders in the country. Background of the Case Article 74 of Indonesia’s Trademark Law of 2016 specifies that trademarks can be canceled if they go unused in the trade of goods or services for three consecutive years from the date of registration or last use. This provision is aligned with the Paris Convention and the TRIPs Agreement. On October 27, 2023, an Indonesian individual named Ricky Thio asked the Constitutional Court to examine the constitutionality of Article 74, arguing that it opened a pathway for third parties to eliminate trademarks owned by small and medium-sized enterprises (SMEs), and did not provide certainty to his registered trademark in terms of the period of protection. Additionally, he argued that the period of three consecutive years was burdensome for SMEs, and asked the court to void Article 74 and add force majeure circumstances—such as Covid-19—as an exemption to non-use cancellation. Mr. Thio submitted this request while he was defending his trademark registration from a non-use cancellation request filed by Zhejiang Dahua Technology Co., Ltd. In his defense to that cancellation request, Mr. Thio explained that the non-use of the trademark was due to the Covid-19 pandemic. The cancellation case followed a different judicial pathway, and was under appeal before the Supreme Court at the time Mr. Thio filed his request for judicial review with the Constitutional Court. Mr. Thio’s case also attracted the submission of an amicus brief—a relatively new trend in Indonesia—from
Read More
August 30, 2024
In 2023, Vietnam’s Intellectual Property Rights Infringement Prevention Cooperation Program reported that 776 cases of IPR infringement were resolved nationwide. Of these, 546 were addressed through administrative measures, while criminal proceedings were initiated in just five cases. These statistics clearly show that administrative measures overwhelmingly dominate the response to counterfeit goods, with criminal actions being relatively rare. This raises an intriguing question: Why do IPR holders prefer administrative routes over criminal measures in Vietnam? And what challenges and obstacles make criminal enforcement less commonly pursued in these cases? Overlapping legal provisions Under Vietnam’s Penal Code, two key offenses address counterfeit goods: Manufacturing and trading in counterfeit goods under Article 192. Manufacturing and trading in industrial property rights-infringing goods under Article 226. Both provisions regulate counterfeit goods, yet they suffer from a lack of clear definitions and guidelines for application. Article 192 does not explicitly define “counterfeit goods”. Instead, authorities refer to Article 3.7 of Decree No. 98/2020/ND-CP, as amended, which outlines several categories of counterfeit goods, including: (i) utility counterfeits (goods not meeting normal expectations of usage or function), (ii) substandard goods, (iii) counterfeit goods based on misrepresentation, and (iv) counterfeit stamps, labels, and packaging. Meanwhile, Article 226 specifically deals with counterfeit goods that infringe trademark rights. These “trademark-counterfeit goods” are defined under Article 213.2 of the IP Law as goods or packaging bearing trademarks or signs that are identical or confusingly similar to protected trademarks for the same goods, used without the trademark owner’s permission. In this regard, “counterfeit goods” and “trademark-counterfeit goods” are treated as distinct, non-overlapping concepts, each corresponding to a separate offense. However, in practice, there is often a gray area where the two overlap. Many cases involve infringing goods that meet the criteria for both categories, allowing authorities to apply both regulations simultaneously. For
Read More