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

March 27, 2020

New Regulation on Advisory Council Mechanism for Settlement of IP Appeals in Vietnam

Subscribe to Updates

Appeals in the IP field are very common in Vietnam, but it can take a long time to for these cases to be resolved, and the number of appeals pending at the moment is rather high. One of the reasons for this is the lack of human resources allocated to resolving appeals.

The Law on Complaints offers a helpful mechanism to streamline the appeal process, enabling the appeal settlement agency to set up a special Advisory Council to assist in settling appeals at the second stage. Point 22.8 of Circular No. 16/2016/TT-BKHCN, which guides the implementation of the Law on Intellectual Property and took effect on January 15, 2018 (“Circular 16”), additionally lays out the specific framework for IP appeals, providing that the appeal settlement body, depending on the complexity of the case, can seek the opinions of independent consultants or an Advisory Council.

To provide more details on this matter, on February 12, 2020, the Intellectual Property Office of Vietnam (“IP Office”) issued Decision No. 362/QD-SHTT promulgating the Regulation on Advisory Activities in Appeal Settlements in Industrial Property Matters (the “Regulation”). The new Regulation goes into greater detail on the definitions, functions, qualifications, sources, operating principles, and other matters relating to Advisory Councils and independent consultants as introduced under Point 22.8 of Circular 16. We provide a summary of the Regulation below.

Summary of the Regulation

Scope and Definitions

The Regulation applies to all relevant units and individuals within the IP Office.

An “Advisory Council” is a council established by the Director General of the IP Office to advise the Director General on legal and technical issues and solutions in the course of settlement of appeals of one or more specific matters. Its members include independent consultants (as defined below) or individuals with other appropriate expertise.

“Independent consultants” are persons with suitable expertise who are selected from the list of industrial property consultants approved by the Director General of the IP Office as well as from other sources (if there are no suitable experts on the list).

Subject to the content and nature of the appeal, the Director General of the IP Office will decide to set up an Advisory Council or to consult an independent consultant.

Advisory Content

The Advisory Council or an independent consultant can advise on legal and technical issues and their solutions relating to the following:

  1. The right to file applications for the registration of industrial property rights;
  2. The registrability of industrial property objects;
  3. The scope of protection of industrial property rights;
  4. Methods of identifying acts of bad faith and unfair competition related to industrial property rights;
  5. Assessment of the nature of evidence provided by the claimant and its appropriateness to the arguments; and
  6. Other contents as decided by the Director General.

Organization of the Advisory Council

An Advisory Council is established per the decision of the Director General of the IP Office, and consists of five to seven members, depending on the contents and nature of the respective appeal. An Advisory Council includes a chairman, vice chairman, and other members who are consultants. A staff member of the IP Office’s Enforcement and Appeal Division will serve as the administrative secretary of the Advisory Council.

The responsibilities of the Advisory Council members are as follows:

  • The chairman shall determine the meeting timelines of the Advisory Council; chair and manage the operations of the Advisory Council; assign tasks to the members of the Advisory Council; sign the minutes and other related documents of the Advisory Council; take general responsibility for proposing the plans for the appeal settlement; request the IP Office to hold direct discussions with the claimant, the defendant, and persons with related rights and interests; conduct on-site surveys for appeals with complicated details and multi-claimant appeals in accordance with the law, where necessary; etc.
  • The vice chairman shall perform the tasks and powers of the chairman if the chairman is absent, and report to the chairman the outcome of the meetings; assist the chairman in directing and implementing the tasks of the Advisory Council during the meetings; check on and urge the Advisory Council members to implement their work per the assignment of the chairman; perform the tasks and powers of a member of the Advisory Council; etc.
  • The other members shall fully participate in the meetings and activities of the Advisory Council when summoned; have the right to propose, discuss and vote on matters within the responsibilities of the Advisory Council; be responsible for and be entitled to reserve their own opinions; etc.

Independent consultants are obligated to give their opinions on the appeal matters honestly, subjectively, and fairly, in accordance with the laws and practices of Vietnam.

An effective way to resolve IP appeals?

It is worth noting that according to the Law on Complaints, only second-stage complaints/appeals can be resolved through an Advisory Council. However, according to the Regulation, the IP Office can also set up and seek advice from the Advisory Council and independent consultants for first-stage appeals at the IP Office. This is expected to result in reasonable, sensible decisions, while shortening the appeal examination period. However, it is not indicated in the Regulation whether the Advisory Council and independent consultants will be involved in second-stage appeals at the Ministry of Science and Technology.

Nevertheless, the Regulation brings much hope for Vietnam’s IP practitioners and IP owners that their appeals will be resolved efficiently in the near future.

Related Professionals

Practices

Dispute Resolution and Litigation

Intellectual Property

Location

RELATED INSIGHTS​ 

August 27, 2026
It is generally understood that patents are granted for new designs that have not been widely known or used in Thailand and not been disclosed anywhere prior to the date of the patent application. It is trite law that design law protects the distinctive appearance or products. Under Section 3 of the Thai Patent Act B.E. 2522, as amended by the Patent Act (No. 2) B.E. 2535 and the Patent Act (No. 3) B.E. 2542, a design is defined as “any form or composition of lines or colors that gives a product a special appearance and can serve as a pattern for an industrial or handicraft product.” This raises an important question. Can a patent be issued for a product design that contains text, numerals, trademarks, or symbols that do not fall under the definition of a design? This issue commonly arises when attempting to register packaging, labels, and graphical user interfaces (GUIs). Until a few years ago, applicants could file design applications with the Thai Patent Office for designs that contained such elements, provided that an appropriate disclaimer was included. This practice was generally accepted by Thai design examiners at that time, but the Patent Office has since implemented a change in its practice that could have a significant impact on applicants for design patents. Where design representations are submitted as line drawings or computer-aided design (CAD) drawings, the examiner may now issue an office action requiring their removal. This practice, however, appears to be applied inconsistently, as some examiners still exercise their own discretion in determining whether drawings containing these elements are acceptable. Below are examples of a GUI design, a CAD drawing design, and a photographic design representation that illustrates issues relating to the presence of nonallowable elements. GUI design For this GUI design, the submitted
Read More
August 27, 2026
Franchising in Thailand has matured into a sizeable commercial sector, but the rules governing franchisor–franchisee relationships remain scattered across general legislation rather than consolidated in a dedicated franchise statute. In this environment, the decisions of the Trade Competition Commission of Thailand (TCCT) have emerged as valuable practical guidance. Thailand follows a civil-law system in which judicial and administrative decisions do not create binding precedent; however, past rulings are nonetheless influential. This article examines the most instructive recent TCCT decisions and distills the practical compliance considerations for franchisors and franchisees operating in Thailand. Postcontract Changes: Justified or Unfair? A recurring issue is whether a franchisor may alter the terms of engagement after contract execution. The TCCT has established that midterm modifications are not inherently unfair; the determinative factors are whether there was a reasonable business justification, adequate advance notice, and a transparent process. In a 2023 coffee franchise matter, for instance, the TCCT declined to find a violation where a franchisor increased raw material prices, noting the increase had been communicated in advance and supported by demonstrable cost pressures. A bubble tea franchise matter reinforces this principle. The TCCT found that postcontract mandatory purchases of branded syrup and flavorings were justified, as the agreement reserved the franchisor’s right to modify product requirements, the materials were sold at or below market prices, and the branded ingredients possessed distinctive qualities deemed essential to franchise quality. The complaint was dismissed, with the additional requirements characterized as a legitimate measure to preserve brand consistency. Considered together, these decisions indicate that post‑contract modifications will be evaluated against three criteria: (1) whether there is a legitimate business rationale, (2) whether adequate advance notice was provided, and (3) whether franchisees were treated equitably throughout the transition. Discriminatory Treatment: Are Renewals and Information Equal? A 2024 automotive dealership
Read More
August 24, 2026
Significant economic challenges facing Thailand in recent years have placed financial pressure on both individuals and businesses. As a result, many debtors may find themselves unable to meet their repayment obligations, leading to bankruptcy proceedings. When an individual or corporate debtor in Thailand is subject to bankruptcy proceedings, the Thai Bankruptcy Act B.E. 2483 (1940) provides a legal framework for collecting a debtor’s assets and using them to repay creditors. Under the Bankruptcy Act, creditors wishing to recover outstanding debts must file a debt repayment application (DRA), which is the primary mechanism for asserting claims in bankruptcy proceedings. However, the filing of a DRA is subject to specific legal requirements, procedural rules, deadlines, and supporting documentation. Failure to comply with these requirements may adversely affect a creditor’s ability to recover its claim. This article highlights the key considerations that creditors should be aware of when filing a DRA in a bankruptcy case in Thailand. Filing a DRA In a bankruptcy case, after the court issues an absolute receivership order, the debtor loses the authority to manage or dispose of its assets. Control over the debtor’s assets is transferred to the official receiver, a government official responsible for administering the bankruptcy estate in accordance with the Bankruptcy Act. Creditors seeking repayment of their debts must file a DRA with the official receiver within two months of the absolute receivership order being officially published in the Government Gazette. For creditors outside of Thailand, the official receiver may extend the filing period by up to an additional two months. These filing deadlines are strictly enforced. Failure to file within the prescribed period may result in the claim being barred, except in limited circumstances permitted by the Bankruptcy Act. Where a late filing is accepted due to force majeure, the creditor may only
Read More
August 20, 2026
Vietnam’s Law on Bankruptcy and Rehabilitation No. 142/2025/QH15, passed by the National Assembly on December 11, 2025, does something many regional counterparts do not yet attempt: it instructs parties and arbitral tribunals on exactly what happens to an arbitration once a debtor becomes insolvent. Together with the Law on Commercial Arbitration No. 54/2010/QH12, the new law improves upon what used to be an uncertain area of practice, now providing an explicit, mandatory sequence of procedures. Suspension and Termination of Arbitration Proceedings Under article 40(2) of the law, once a Vietnamese court accepts a bankruptcy petition, any arbitration that concerns the debtor’s financial obligations must be temporarily suspended as soon as the tribunal receives the court’s notification. If the court subsequently issues a decision commencing bankruptcy proceedings, article 59(2) takes a further step: the suspended arbitration is terminated outright, and the underlying case file is transferred to the court handling the insolvency for resolution. The two provisions work as a sequence: first suspension, then termination and transfer, rather than as independent triggers. Meanwhile, article 60(4) reinforces this effect by vesting the bankruptcy court with exclusive jurisdiction over all claims against the debtor from the date the petition is accepted. Notably, this mechanism operates automatically, without the need for the insolvency court to issue a separate anti-arbitration order. The tribunal simply suspends or terminates the proceeding by operation of law once notified; however, Vietnamese law currently provides no procedure by which a party can apply to the insolvency court for permission to continue the arbitration despite the statutory effect. Practitioners with a Vietnamese counterparty in arbitration should treat notification of a bankruptcy filing as something to flag to the tribunal immediately since continuing to arbitrate a claim that has become subject to article 40(2) or 59(2) risks producing an award vulnerable
Read More