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, 2025
Distinctiveness is a fundamental requirement for a trademark’s registration and protection under Thai law. The Thai courts typically assess distinctiveness based on a mark’s inherent characteristics rather than its use, as proving acquired distinctiveness through use requires substantial evidence, including the duration of use, extent of distribution and promotional efforts. However, the Intellectual Property and International Trade Court (IP & IT Court) has recently ruled that the figurative mark WEPLAY had acquired distinctiveness through use – an uncommon ruling under Thai trademark law. Subsequently, the Court of Appeal for Specialised Cases affirmed the mark’s inherent distinctiveness based on a holistic assessment of its components. This article discusses the criteria for proving both inherent and acquired distinctiveness, offering examples from both courts to provide valuable insights into case preparation and understanding of how the courts assess distinctiveness. Background In 2017 the plaintiff filed a trademark application for the mark depicted below for goods in Class 28, including toy building blocks: The registrar rejected the application on the grounds of non-distinctiveness under Section 7 of the Trademark Act. The plaintiff appealed to the Board of Trademarks, which considered that, when the term ‘weplay’ is used for goods in Class 28, it is descriptive of the nature of the goods applied for as “playthings”. Therefore, ‘weplay’ was deemed nondistinctive under Section 7, Paragraph 2(2) of the Trademark Act. IP & IT Court decision In 2024 the IP & IT Court ruled that the term ‘weplay’ is not a coined or invented word; instead, it is a combination of ‘we’ and ‘play’, conveying the meaning of ‘we play’. When the term is used for goods in Class 28, it describes the nature of the goods as “playthings”. Consequently, the mark was deemed non-distinctive. However, the court considered the evidence presented by the plaintiff,
Read More
July 14, 2025
Life sciences specialists from Tilleke & Gibbins have updated the firm’s guide to pharmaceutical data exclusivity regulations and practices in Southeast Asia. This guide contains quick-reference information on the availability of data exclusivity protections and limitations in Cambodia, Indonesia, Laos, Malaysia, Myanmar, Thailand, and Vietnam. Developing and launching a new drug on a commercial scale requires an enormous amount of time and investment in research and development (R&D), including pre-clinical testing and clinical trials. When considering the aggregate amount of drug development costs, it is important to recognize that this includes not only the investment in developing new drugs that get approved by a government food and drug regulator and are successfully brought to market, but also the R&D expenditures on a large number of potential pharmaceutical compounds and products that never actually make it to market. In particular, considerable investment is required in order to conduct and produce clinical trial data—to prove safety, efficacy and effectiveness of a new drug—that would warrant marketing approval by the regulatory authority. Such data is proprietary in nature and highly valuable for a research-based pharmaceutical company that develops an original drug. On the other hand, patent law typically confers generic drug manufacturers with the ability to engage in various preparatory activities with a view to obtaining marketing approval for a generic product before the patent for the original drug expires (commonly known as a “Bolar provision”). Since a generic drug maker may submit an application for marketing approval of a generic product before the relevant patent expires, the extent to which the drug originator’s data submitted to the regulatory authority is protected—or in other words, the extent to which the generic company may rely on the drug originator’s previously filed data, which underpins the safety and efficacy of the drug, to support
Read More
June 30, 2025
Vietnam is making notable strides in decentralization, aiming to grant greater autonomy to local government entities to streamline administrative procedures. As part of this effort, the government issued Decree No. 133/2025/ND-CP on decentralization of state management of the Ministry of Science and Technology dated June 12, 2025 (Decree 133). Effective from July 1, 2025, Decree 133 decentralizes and delegates numerous state management functions—including in intellectual property (IP) and technology transfer—to provincial-level People’s Committees (PCs). This reform signals a profound shift in how IP rights are administered and enforced across Vietnam. While this offers new opportunities for IP owners, agents, and innovators, it also introduces additional operational complexities. Impact on IP and Technology Transfer Decree 133 significantly reallocates responsibilities in IP and technology transfer, primarily to provincial-level PCs. Provincial PCs and other provincial authorities are now empowered to handle a wide range of tasks, including but not limited to the following: Issuance of duplicates and reissuance of certificates of registration. Registration of license agreements for the transfer of usage rights for industrial property objects (e.g., trademarks, patents) and recording amendments, extensions, or early terminations of such agreements. Enforcing decisions on compulsory licensing of patent use rights. Evaluation and approval of technology transfer contracts—a key step in facilitating localized technological advancements. Permitting the establishment of foreign-invested scientific organizations and their branches, to encourage foreign direct investment in local R&D and technology development. Approval of provincial-level R&D tasks, aligning with local socio-economic development priorities. Legal Implications The decentralization and delegation brought forth by Decree 133 carry several significant legal implications: Echoing Decree 133, the Intellectual Property Office of Vietnam issued Notification No. 2351/TB-SHTT on June 26, 2025, announcing the cessation of 19 administrative procedures at the national level. Specifically, from July 1, 2025, the IP Office will no longer accept requests related
Read More
June 27, 2025
Three American giants are actively protecting their intellectual property rights against generative AI, as two legal battles commence on both sides of the Atlantic. In the UK, Seattle-based media company Getty Images accuses UK-based Stability AI of multiple IP infringements. In the US, The Walt Disney Company and Universal Studios are teaming up against Midjourney, an AI startup, with their main ground being copyright infringement. Both cases are centered around questions legal minds have been posing since the introduction of generative AI: Is the output of generative AI an infringement? And who is ultimately responsible for the output, the platform or the user? Getty Images v. Stability AI Getty initially filed a claim in the High Court in 2023, which resulted in Stability applying for reverse summary judgment on the grounds that Getty had no real prospect of success, arguing that their operations took place outside the UK. However, the High Court judge hearing the case decided that the claims brought by Getty did have a real prospect of succeeding in court. Despite this, Stability saw a small victory when the court ruled that the representative action brought by Getty would not succeed due to the difficulties in identifying who qualified for the class. The proposed class was comprised of 50,000 rightsholders who alleged their rights were also infringed. Stability was successful in arguing that identifying these individuals would be challenging due to the unclear definition of the class. This current trial is centered around four main grounds: Copyright infringement. Getty accuses Stability of using content that Getty owns or has an exclusive license for when training their model, Stable Diffusion, resulting in the generated output containing substantial parts of that content. Getty is also alleging secondary copyright infringement, arguing that Stability is importing an article into the UK
Read More