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​ 

June 15, 2026
The surge in AI development has led to a desperate demand for large, high-quality training data. However, real-world data can be expensive to collect, difficult to access, and often subject to strict privacy and regulatory constraints. Synthetic data, which consists of artificially generated records that replicate the statistical properties of real-world data without reproducing specific individuals’ information, provides an appealing solution by generating artificial datasets at scale without relying on identifiable personal information. It combines speed, cost efficiency, and regulatory compliance, making it a sensible alternative for organizations seeking to reduce risks while maintaining data utility. When properly anonymized, synthetic datasets may fall outside the scope of laws such as the EU’s General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR) or Thailand’s Personal Data Protection Act (PDPA), reducing compliance burdens while still supporting high-quality model training. However, relying on synthetic data without rigorous legal due diligence could be a strategic mistake. It replaces one set of known risks (scraping, direct privacy liability) with a new set of complex liabilities. The narrative that synthetic data is a “silver bullet” for privacy and IP compliance is dangerous and could be misleading. While synthetic data addresses data scarcity, it also introduces new legal uncertainties. Legal counsel should anticipate downstream risks arising from compromised data sources. Models trained on unlawfully obtained data may need to be decommissioned, even if their outputs appear lawful. What is synthetic data? Synthetic data refers to artificially generated information created using AI techniques such as deep learning and generative models. Instead of copying real records, it reproduces the statistical patterns and relationships found in the original dataset. Synthetic data generally falls into three categories: Fully synthetic data – Entirely new data points generated from learned patterns. The model studies the structure of the original data and produces records that resemble real-world
Read More
June 10, 2026
In March 2026, the Intellectual Property Office of Vietnam (IP Office) issued a decision refusing a trademark application after considering an opposition based primarily on copyright grounds. The outcome is noteworthy because the foreign brand owner had neither trademark registrations nor applications in Vietnam at the time the opposition was filed, and the IP Office has historically applied a stringent approach to oppositions relying on copyright. The Opposition Maurten is a well-known Swedish sports nutrition brand recognized globally for its innovative hydrogel technology, which is designed to help endurance athletes fuel more effectively without gastrointestinal discomfort. The brand’s distinctive logo is characterized by clean lines and a bold black-and-white color scheme, and has long been associated with the company’s performance products. The brand’s logo is displayed above. An identical mark was filed for registration by a Vietnamese trademark squatter. In 2023, a Vietnamese individual filed an application for registration of an identical mark (Application No. 4-2023-38668), a practice commonly observed in Vietnam as trademark squatting. The brand owner engaged Tilleke & Gibbins to assist with strategy and filing an opposition to the mark. At the time, Maurten had no trademark rights or meaningful use in Vietnam, and global marketing data showed only modest figures without any local presence. Thus, to convince the IP Office to refuse the squatter’s application, instead of relying on trademark rights or use evidence, the opposition strategy centered on the copyright protection of the logo itself, as copyright arises automatically in Vietnam upon creation of the work and does not require registration. (It is worth noting, however, that the IP Office has traditionally been cautious in accepting copyright as a basis for refusing trademark applications.) On September 24, 2024, an opposition was filed on three main grounds: confusing similarity, copyright infringement of the artistic work,
Read More
June 10, 2026
For multinational franchisors operating in Thailand, a key risk after franchise termination is that former outlets may continue operating in ways that could easily mislead consumers into believing they remain within the authorized network. To justify such operations, former franchisees often argue that the termination was invalid or ineffective. As a result, these cases are often treated as contractual disputes, making it difficult for franchisors to obtain injunctive relief before a final judgment confirms that the termination was lawful. Franchisors face significant commercial and reputational harm during lengthy proceedings, including consumer confusion, disruption to franchise restructuring, and damage to brand reputation and customer trust. In an encouraging development, the Thai court in a 2025 case responded to the problem of unauthorized post-termination franchise operations by granting interim relief, recognizing broader brand and consumer harm, and awarding substantial damages, highlighting a successful litigation strategy of framing the dispute not merely as a contractual termination issue but as trademark infringement causing ongoing commercial injury. The Subway Case From December 2024 to mid-2025, an unauthorized “Subway®” franchise operation in Thailand attracted substantial public and media attention. Reports and online discussions about unauthorized Subway® stores circulated widely after complaints arose about food quality and customer experience at certain outlets that were allegedly operating after their franchise rights had expired. Because these stores continued to use Subway® trademarks, trade dress, and overall commercial appearance, many consumers were unable to distinguish them from authorized operations, resulting in reputational risks and customer confusion that affected the franchisor’s brand and franchise system in Thailand. Subway treated this matter with the utmost seriousness and moved promptly to protect its brand, franchise system, and customers. It filed a civil action with the IP&IT Court seeking a permanent injunction and damages. During the proceedings, the court granted a preliminary injunction
Read More
May 22, 2026
Intellectual property specialists from Tilleke & Gibbins in Vietnam have contributed an updated Intellectual Property Transactions in Vietnam overview for Thomson Reuters Practical Law, an online publication that provides comprehensive legal guides for jurisdictions worldwide. The Vietnam overview was authored by Linh Thi Mai Nguyen, Thanh Phuong Vu, Chi Lan Dang, Son Thai Hoang, and Duc Anh Tran. The chapter provides a high-level examination of key aspects of IP transactions law in Vietnam, including IP assignment and licensing, research and development collaborations, IP in mergers and acquisitions (M&A), lending and taking security over intellectual property rights, settlement agreements, employee- and consultant-created IP, competition law, taxation, and non-tariff trade barriers. Key topics covered in the chapter include: IP assignment: Basis and formalities for assignments of patents, utility models, trade marks, copyright, design rights, trade secrets, confidential information, and domain names in Vietnam. IP licensing: Scope, formalities, and recordal requirements for licensing patents, trade marks, copyright, design rights, and trade secrets. Research and development collaborations: Treatment of improvements, derivatives, and joint ownership of IP, including exploitation and enforcement issues. IP aspects of M&A and security: Due diligence, warranties, transfer formalities, and taking security over intellectual property rights. Practical Law, a legal reference resource from Thomson Reuters, publishes a range of guides for hundreds of jurisdictions and practice areas. The Intellectual Property Transactions Global Guide is a valuable resource for legal practitioners seeking comparative insight into transactional IP issues across multiple jurisdictions. To view the latest version of the Intellectual Property Transactions in Vietnam overview, please visit the Practical Law website and enroll in the free Practical Law trial to gain full access.
Read More