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​ 

July 21, 2026
Thailand’s Ministry of Digital Economy and Society (MDES) published a notification establishing an expedited court-ordered takedown mechanism for online content in cases of “urgent necessity.” The notification, which was issued on July 17, 2026, under the Computer Crime Act B.E. 2550 (2007), as amended, took effect the following day. It significantly expands the categories of content subject to rapid government-initiated removal. Content Categories Subject to Takedown The notification defines “urgent necessity” (section 20, paragraph 5, of the Computer Crime Act) as circumstances where any delay in suppressing computer data may impact national security, religion, the monarchy, good morals, social culture, or public order. In this regard, it establishes four broad categories of content: Computer Crime Act offenses. National security offenses. IP and other criminal offenses, where it is contrary to public order or good morals and a competent officer has requested its suppression. Content contrary to public order or good morals, a broad residual category encompassing 14 subcategories approved by the Computer Data Screening Committee. The fourth category is the most expansive. Its 14 subcategories include: Content defaming, mocking, satirizing, or devaluing the monarchy. Online gambling advertising or facilitation. Offering illegal firearms for sale. Offering baraku (hookah) products or e-cigarettes for sale. Offering cannabis inflorescences or processed cannabis products for sale. Advertising or soliciting prostitution. Content inciting violence, hatred, or social division. Unauthorized overseas employment advertising. Offering boiled kratom juice for sale. Online sale or advertising of alcoholic beverages. Content satirizing or degrading Buddhism. Money lending at interest rates exceeding legally prescribed limits. Advertising or disseminating information about surrogacy services. Forgery of documents, cards, or official documents. Enforcement Procedure In cases of urgent necessity, a competent official assigned by the MDES permanent secretary must file a petition with supporting evidence to the court with jurisdiction, requesting an order to
Read More
July 15, 2026
Ambush marketing refers to a strategy in which a business associates itself with an event, campaign, or brand without paying for official sponsorship rights. The tactic is most visible in sports, concerts, and festivals, where official sponsors have invested substantially for exclusivity. Ambush marketers may use suggestive wording, event-themed imagery, athlete endorsements, venue-adjacent promotions, or social media campaigns implying a commercial connection with the event. Common Forms of Ambush Marketing Ambush marketing typically takes one of the following forms: Direct ambushing: using event names, logos, or mascots suggesting authorization Coattail ambushing: sponsoring an athlete or broadcaster connected with the event Subtle ambushing: themed advertising, venue-adjacent campaigns, or similar visual cues The legal analysis in each case turns on whether the marketing crosses from permissible event-based advertising into infringement, passing off, deception, or wrongful exploitation of goodwill, and the risk assessment is necessarily fact-specific. Thailand has no dedicated ambush marketing statute, so legality depends on execution. A campaign that merely comments on a public event may be permissible, but one that uses protected marks, creates consumer confusion, misrepresents sponsorship status, or makes unsubstantiated claims may trigger liability under various Thai laws, as laid out below. Ambush Marketing and Thailand’s Trademark Act The Trademark Act B.E. 2534 (1991) is the primary tool for addressing campaigns that use registered trademarks, event names, logos, mascots, or confusingly similar signs. The law gives registered trademark owners the exclusive right to use their mark for registered goods, and infringement risk arises when a nonsponsor uses an event mark or a confusingly similar sign in advertising. Even referential or playful use may create liability if it causes public confusion as to sponsorship or commercial connection. The law also preserves passing-off claims for unregistered marks. This matters because event names, taglines, or mascots may not always be
Read More
July 13, 2026
When Decree No. 186/2026/ND-CP (Decree 186) takes effect on July 15, 2026, it will introduce the most significant reform of Vietnam’s administrative IP enforcement framework since Decree 99/2013/ND-CP was issued in 2013. These changes are expected to make administrative enforcement faster, more accessible, and better suited to the realities of modern IP disputes. Below are the principal reforms and their practical implications for rights holders and enforcement practitioners. The End of Notarization and Consular Legalization Among the most welcome procedural changes is the abolition of the notarization and consular legalization requirement for powers of attorney (POA) submitted in administrative enforcement proceedings. Under the previous regime, foreign rights holders were generally required to execute a POA, then have it notarized and consular legalized (if seeking customs recordal). In practice, this process frequently delayed enforcement by four to eight weeks, often long enough for infringing goods to disappear before authorities could intervene. Decree 186 removes this bottleneck, now requiring only an original or certified copy of the POA. If the document is in a foreign language, a Vietnamese translation is sufficient, provided it is certified by a competent authority or confirmed by the authorized Vietnamese IP representative. Consular legalization and notarization are no longer required. For rights holders, the practical impact is substantial. Administrative enforcement files that previously took weeks to prepare can now be completed in a matter of days, allowing much faster responses in time-sensitive matters such as warehouse raids, border interventions, and trade-fair enforcement. The decree also introduces a useful administrative simplification. Where an original POA has already been submitted to the same enforcement authority and remains valid, applicants may rely on a copy of that earlier submission by identifying the previous case file. This eliminates unnecessary duplication for rights holders pursuing multiple enforcement actions before the same
Read More
July 9, 2026
Recycling, upcycling, and refill-packaging models are now widely promoted as ways to reduce waste, lower carbon emissions, and respond to consumer demand for sustainable products. However, complications arise when these environmentally driven trends intersect with intellectual property law—particularly where reused or altered packaging continues to display third parties’ registered trademarks. Adding to this complexity, Thailand’s draft Sustainable Packaging Management Act aims to introduce new environmental compliance obligations that businesses must navigate alongside existing trademark concerns. Recycling and upcycling packaging may infringe trademark rights, especially in cases not protected by the first-sale doctrine—the principle that a trademark owner’s rights over a particular mark-bearing product end once the owner first sells it. Furthermore, even refill packaging carries legal risk due to specific statutory prohibitions under Thai law. Compounding these challenges, the draft Sustainable Packaging Management Act will impose extended producer responsibility (EPR) obligations on manufacturers and brand owners, requiring them to manage packaging throughout its lifecycle. These overlapping legal frameworks could deter manufacturers from pursuing ESG-aligned business models unless businesses understand how to navigate both trademark and environmental requirements. Under Thai law, this issue remains uncertain because the Trademark Act does not expressly codify the first sale doctrine, also known as the exhaustion of trademark rights. Generally, this doctrine provides that once a trademark owner has lawfully sold goods bearing its trademark, the owner’s right to control further resale of those particular goods is exhausted. The rationale is that the owner has already received commercial benefit from the first authorized sale; therefore, the purchaser should be free to resell or otherwise dispose of the goods. Although the doctrine is not expressly codified in the Trademark Act, Thai courts have recognized it in relation to genuine goods and parallel imports, as seen in a Supreme Court Judgment No. 2817/2543 in which the
Read More