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

July 7, 2023

New Definition of Industrial Design in Vietnam’s Amended IP Law Needs Clarification

Subscribe to Updates

The amended IP Law adopted by the National Assembly of Vietnam on June 16, 2022, which took effect on January 1, 2023, revises the definition of an industrial design, which had been unaltered since the introduction of the first IP Law in 2005. This amended definition will certainly have a significant influence on the understanding, application, and interpretation of regulations on protection of industrial designs in Vietnam. The revised definition reads as follows, with the new additions in bold (no words were removed from the old definition):

Article 4.13:

Industrial design means the external appearance of a product or a component for assembly of a complex product represented in shapes, lines, colors, or any combination thereof, and visible during the utilization of the product or complex product.

This definition can be separated into two groups of objects:

Group 1

Industrial design means:

1.1: the external appearance of a product

1.2: represented in shapes, lines, colors, or any combination thereof, and

1.3: visible during the utilization of the product.

Group 2

Industrial design means:

2.1: the external appearance of a component for assembly of a complex product,

2.2: represented in shapes, lines, colors, or any combination thereof, and

2.3: visible during the utilization of the complex product.

In principle, Group 2 must include at least one object that is not covered in Group 1, because if Group 2 is completely covered by Group 1, it would be unnecessary to revise the definition to reflect the “new” group of objects. We will consider the above definition in such spirit.

 

Group 1 Objects

Under the revised definition, conditions 1.1 and 1.2 are unchanged, and condition 1.3 is added. Condition 1.3 essentially reflects the exclusion already specified in Article 64.3 of the IP Law, i.e., “the external appearance of a product that is invisible during the utilization of the product is not registrable as an industrial design.” It can be understood that the addition of condition 1.3 serves only to bring the protection conditions for an industrial design into the definition (formerly, it was required to rely on both the definition and the exclusions to determine the scope of protection); it does not regulate condition 1.1 with regard to the external appearance of the product. We will discuss this condition further with regard to the Group 2 objects.

In summary, under the revised definition of an industrial design, the scope of Group 1 objects is basically unchanged from the former definition.

 

Group 2 Objects

The revised definition of an industrial design also refers to a new group of objects with conditions 2.1, 2.2, and 2.3.

Regarding condition 2.1, “the external appearance of a component for assembly of a complex product,” the term “component” is mentioned in Article 33.2.b of Circular 16/2016/TT-BKHCN (Circular 16): “Products are understood as items, tools, equipment, means, or components used to assemble or compose such products, manufactured by industrial or manual methods, with clear structure and function, and circulated independently.” The term “component” is thus not new, so it can be understood that Group 2 is not new, but only clarifies a “component for assembly of a complex product” to distinguish it from a “product.”

We can further consider the terms “component”, “assembly,” and “complex product”.

  • “Component”: Under Article 33.2.b of Circular 16, it is clear that the term “component” can itself be understood as a “product.” However, there is an opinion that by separating these two concepts in the definition of an industrial design, the term “component” refers to a component that by itself cannot create functions and uses of the complex product that it will be assembled into. If a component creates the functions and uses of a complex product, it becomes an independent “product,” which is already covered in Group 1. We also note that this approach is based on the validity of Article 33.2.b of Circular 16. If new circulars promulgated to guide the amended IP Law change this article, this approach should be reconsidered.
  • “Assembly”: There is an opinion that “assembly” is only used for tangible products, which can be manipulated, handled, and operated directly by manual or mechanical means. Thus, in addition to the independent circulation requirement, this new definition provides an additional basis for excluding non-tangible products/components such as typefaces, graphical user interfaces (GUI), etc.For tangible products/components, what does “assembly” mean? If it is understood in a broad sense, which means linking, combining, connecting, attaching, bonding, coupling, etc., between components—including not only mechanical connections but also the use of adhesives, intermediate/connecting components, 3D printing of materials, etc., and not only direct assembly but also indirect assembly through one or more intermediate/connecting components—then the scope of Group 2 will be very broad. However, if the term “assembly” is only understood in a narrow sense, meaning mechanically and directly joined components, Group 2 will be much smaller. There is also an opinion that “assembly” refers to the case where a component, once assembled, cannot be disassembled without breaking the structure of other components or the complex product. In this case, the scope of Group 2 will be much narrower still, and the addition of Group 2 is to provide an additional basis for excluding partial designs that cannot be easily removed from the main product.

    The term “assembly” is therefore also a very important term in understanding the scope of Group 2, and it is clear that more guidance and expertise is needed to explain how to understand and use this term.

  • “Complex product”: According to the above analysis, the “complex product” itself is covered in the “product.” Therefore, in this context, the addition of the term “complex product” is probably only to clarify or define the “component”, and the consideration of a “complex product” should be associated with the consideration of a “component”. However, there is also a need to define more clearly the connotations and externalities of the term “complex product” included in the new definition of an industrial design.

Condition 2.2, like condition 1.2, is unchanged in comparison with the former definition of an industrial design. However, in the context of referring to “a component for assembly of a complex product”, condition 2.2 should be understood to refer to the shapes, lines and colors of the “component,” and not the “complex product.”

Condition 2.3, as discussed above with regard to condition 1.3, appears to also be the addition of the exclusion provided in Article 64.3 of the IP Law to the new definition of an industrial design, with the term “complex product” adjusted to suit the new Group 2 objects. However, this condition is more specific and explicit for the case of “a component for assembly of a complex product” because there are many cases in which a complex product is made from the assembly of a component with other components, and when the complex product is utilized, the appearance features of the original component are not always visible. This condition thus excludes these cases, and is more explicit and specific for Group 2.

Therefore, according to the revised definition of an industrial design, the conditions for Group 2 include: condition 2.1, which is added; condition 2.2, which is unchanged; and condition 2.3, which adds the exclusion provided in Article 64.3 to the definition of an industrial design. Therefore, it seems that Group 2 is not new, but only clarifies a “component for assembly of a complex product” to distinguish it from a “product.”

In particular, the new terms “component”, “assembly”, “complex product” and “utilization” with regard to Group 2 should be understood and explained closely with each other. By analyzing these terms, we also find that the new definition of an industrial design seems to clarify and provide more grounds for excluding non-tangible designs such as typefaces and GUI, as well as partial designs. However, because there can be many different interpretations of the above terms, there should be more detailed explanations, and the subordinate legislation should also be amended to enforce the new provisions.

 

Conclusion

The amended IP Law received much positive feedback from those in the field, and is progressive legislation containing many necessary and reasonable changes for the IP environment of Vietnam. However, there are still some ambiguities in the new definition of an industrial design that need more guidance and expertise on how it should be understood and applied.

Currently, with the information from the dissemination and exchange sessions on how to apply this amended IP Law, we still do not have a clear and unified understanding of the terms “component”, “assembly”, “complex product” and “utilization,” which are closely related to the understanding and the scope of protection of the groups of objects added in the new definition of an industrial design. We hope that with the promulgation of further decrees and circulars, the above terms and the scope of protection of the protected subject matters will be clarified.

Related Professionals

Practices

Intellectual Property

Location

RELATED INSIGHTS​ 

August 10, 2026
Thailand has finalized its social media KYC (“know your customer”) rules under Notification of the Electronic Transactions Commission on Measures to Prevent Technological Crimes for Social Media Service Providers (No. 2), which was published in the Government Gazette on May 5, 2026, and will take effect on November 1, 2026. While an early draft of the notification proposed requiring social media platforms to arrange identification of every user account, the final notification is significantly more targeted, focusing on paid online advertising and advertiser identity verification. Though the regulatory initiative primarily aims to combat online fraud and technology-related crimes, it also has important consequences for intellectual property enforcement, because the verified platform records that will be generated under the new requirements can help IP rights holders to identify anonymous online infringers. Key Regulatory Mandates The notification requires social media service providers to verify the identity of advertisers before their paid advertisements are published and disseminated in Thailand through social media, regardless of whether the advertising fees come from the advertisers or third parties. Verification of an advertiser is valid for one year, after which verification would have to be performed again before the platform could publish additional paid advertisements from the advertiser. Permitted verification methods are specified under the notification. A platform may verify an advertiser by checking identity evidence and confirming the connection between the advertiser and that identity evidence, with the notification giving facial comparison against certain government-issued identity documents as an example. Alternatively, platforms may verify advertisers through a digital identity verification and authentication system with an identity-proofing assurance level not lower than the level prescribed by Thailand’s Electronic Transactions Commission. The notification further requires platforms to retain only the advertiser’s information necessary to identify the advertiser, beginning from the start of the advertising activity and for
Read More
August 6, 2026
Introduction: A Trademark Paradox in Sustainable Packaging Walk into any Thai supermarket, and the label-free water bottle is no longer a novelty. Thailand’s packaging market, valued at approximately USD 15.68 billion in 2025, is shifting toward minimalist, plastic-light designs as ESG pressures reshape how brands present their products. The country generated roughly 5.68 million tons of plastic waste in 2021, with a recycling rate of only 19 percent, and regulators are now considering rules that would allow label-free bottled water relying on embossing, laser printing, or QR codes instead of wrap-around labels. As packaging itself becomes the brand identifier, a paradox emerges: designs built to say the least often struggle hardest for protection under Thai intellectual property law. The Trademark Barrier: When Shape Is Not Enough Section 7, paragraph 2(10) of the Thai Trademark Act deems a shape distinctive only if it is not the natural form of the goods, is not necessary to achieve a technical result, and does not add value to the goods. The Department of Intellectual Property’s 2022 examination guidelines apply this test conservatively, as the following examples illustrate. A plain water bottle relying on subtle contours to signal its brand is typically read as just another bottle, not a source identifier. Acquired distinctiveness offers a theoretical escape route, but it demands extensive evidence of sales, advertising, and consumer recognition—an especially heavy burden for new entrants whose minimalist packaging has not yet achieved market prominence. The result is a structural bias against precisely the design innovation that sustainability goals are meant to encourage. Design Patents: A Partial, Imperfect Substitute Design patent protection, covering a product’s shape, configuration, or ornamentation, appears to offer an alternative route. In practice, it is constrained by the same forces driving the minimalist trend. Because many brands converge on similar solutions—clear
Read More
August 4, 2026
Intellectual property (IP) protection sometimes hinges on fame and recognition. However, this alone will not always be sufficient to overcome an IP dispute when it involves contractual obligations or registered rights. Below are five cases from around the world that tackle some of the basic issues in IP registration, ownership, commercialization, and enforcement. 1. USA: Taylor Swift Trademark Application Refused Taylor Swift recently filed a trademark application to register “The Life of a Showgirl,” which is the title of her 12th studio album. When examining a trademark application, the examiner considers various factors before deciding whether it should be registered. One of these factors is whether there is a likelihood of confusion (i.e., would a regular consumer mistake the origin of the trademark). In Taylor Swift’s case, the US Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO) decided that that there would be a risk of confusion. This decision was based on the existing registered trademark, “Confessions of a Showgirl,” owned by Maren Wade, which was registered in 2015. The USPTO refused Taylor Swift’s application based on the shared key distinctive element “of a showgirl,” the lack of sufficient distinguishing terms, the marks being used in overlapping markets (entertainment and performances), and because consumers may assume a common commercial source. Maren Wade then filed a lawsuit in California against Taylor Swift and her affiliated companies, arguing that Taylor Swfit’s branding is confusingly similar in structure, wording, and overall commercial impression to her registered mark. She is also drawing on the USPTO’s refusal of Taylor Swift’s application to support her argument of a likelihood of confusion. A judgment has not yet been reached in this case, but it serves as an important reminder of the importance of satisfying the essential elements required for IP registration. 2. Australia: Katy Perry v. Katie Perry In
Read More
July 27, 2026
Vietnam’s new E-Commerce Law, which took effect on 1 July 2026 along with its implementing Decree No. 248/2026/ND-CP (Decree 248), marks a significant development in the country’s approach to online intellectual property (IP) enforcement, reflecting a clear shift from a reactive model of intermediary liability to one that expects platforms to play a more active role in preventing infringement. From notice-and-takedown to platform responsibility The most significant change introduced by the E-Commerce Law is the transformation of the legal role of e-commerce platforms. The existing safe harbor provisions under the IP Law and the copyright notice-and-takedown regime established by Decree 17/2023/ND-CP (Decree 17) largely required intermediaries to act only after receiving notice of infringement. Once infringing content had been removed, the platform’s legal obligation was generally considered fulfilled. The new legislation adopts a fundamentally different approach. Article 17 of the E-Commerce Law requires intermediary platforms to screen information relating to goods and services before publication in order to prevent listings involving counterfeit or IP-infringing goods, and goods of unknown origin. Rather than relying exclusively on complaints from rights holders, platforms are now expected to implement preventive measures before infringing listings become publicly available. Decree 248 further requires platforms to update keyword filters based on recommendations issued by competent authorities. These filtering mechanisms are intended to prevent prohibited listings from appearing on the platform and represent a further move away from a purely complaint-driven enforcement model. The legislation also introduces Vietnam’s first statutory stay-down obligation. Under the E-Commerce Law and Decree 248, major digital platforms must maintain automated systems capable of reviewing, warning against, and removing unlawful listings while also implementing measures to prevent repeat violations, defined under Decree 248 as conduct that has previously been identified and handled by the platform, but continues to recur. This obligation addresses one
Read More