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 20, 2026
Thai law contains no provision that speaks directly to what happens to an arbitration when one of the parties becomes insolvent. The interaction between arbitration and insolvency is derived instead from the general operation of two separately drafted laws: the Bankruptcy Act B.E. 2483 (1940) and the Arbitration Act B.E. 2545 (2002). Because Thai courts have had few opportunities to interpret how these two statutes apply together, the practical answer to many questions, such as who represents an insolvent party in arbitration, whether an award will be enforced, and what happens to a foreign proceeding, depends on inference from general principles of insolvency, arbitration, and procedural law rather than on settled rules. Liquidation and Restructuring The Bankruptcy Act governs both liquidation, which winds up a debtor’s affairs, and restructuring (rehabilitation), which aims to preserve a business. The consequences for arbitration differ accordingly. In liquidation, the debtor’s assets vest in the official receiver, who alone can conduct or continue any arbitration affecting the estate; the debtor loses the authority to act on its own behalf. In restructuring, the plan preparer or administrator takes over that role, but there is more room for the debtor to remain involved, since the objective of rehabilitation is to keep the business operational. Restructuring carries an automatic stay that takes effect once the Bankruptcy Court accepts the restructuring petition. This stay can halt an arbitration regardless of where it is seated. In contrast, liquidation does not work through a stay; instead, the debtor’s loss of authority over its own assets and disputes is what constrains the arbitration. Neither proceeding provides a party a formal route to apply for permission to continue arbitrating—the Bankruptcy Act contains no such mechanism—though in restructuring cases the Bankruptcy Court may allow proceedings to continue where doing so will not prejudice
Read More
August 20, 2026
As part of its membership in Lex Mundi, Tilleke & Gibbins has released the latest edition of its Guide to Doing Business in Thailand, providing an overview of the legal, regulatory, and commercial considerations for companies establishing or expanding operations in Thailand. The 2026 edition offers practical insight into the country’s business environment, investment framework, and operational requirements. The guide covers a wide range of topics relevant to foreign and domestic investors, including: Investment incentives and promotion schemes Financial facilities and banking regulations Exchange controls and money transfers Import and export regulations Business structures and incorporation options Requirements for establishing a business Operational and compliance considerations Business cessation and insolvency procedures Employment and labor laws Taxation Immigration and visa requirements Prepared by Tilleke & Gibbins lawyers across multiple practice areas, the publication outlines key aspects of doing business in Thailand, including foreign investment restrictions, regulatory compliance obligations, corporate structures, employment requirements, and recent legal and economic developments affecting investors. The publication forms part of Lex Mundi’s Country Guides series, a global collection of jurisdiction-specific reference materials prepared by member firms around the world. Together, these guides help companies evaluate opportunities, compare regulatory environments, and plan international business activities across multiple markets. The full Guide to Doing Business in Thailand 2026 is available through the button below.
Read More
August 19, 2026
Arbitration clauses and national court jurisdiction have long existed in a delicate equilibrium, and nowhere is that equilibrium tested more often than in the drafting of multitier dispute resolution clauses. Such clauses—requiring negotiation before arbitration—are ubiquitous in international construction contracts, and they frequently employ permissive vocabulary at the arbitration tier. The formulation “either party may submit the dispute to arbitration” is intended to signal that either side is entitled to initiate proceedings. Yet it is periodically seized upon by claimants who prefer national courts, on the theory that “may” preserves a parallel right to litigate. Each apex-court pronouncement on this question is therefore significant for drafting practice and forum predictability. In 2019, the Thai Supreme Court delivered Thailand’s clearest answer to date (Judgment No. 3427/2562). Reversing an appellate court decision, the Supreme Court held that permissive wording at the point of commencement does not dilute the parties’ antecedent agreement to withdraw their disputes from the courts—doing so in regard to an International Chamber of Commerce (ICC) arbitration clause seated in Singapore, a configuration typical of foreign-invested projects in Thailand. This article examines the court’s reasoning, situates the decision within comparative jurisprudence, and draws out its practical lessons for parties and drafters operating in the Thai market. Background of the Dispute The dispute arose from a subcontract for civil engineering and architectural works concluded on September 25, 2014. Clause 19 of the subcontract governed dispute resolution. Clause 19.1 required the parties, at the request of either, to seek to resolve any dispute “in connection with, arising out of, or relating to” the subcontract through mutual consultation within sixty days of written notice. According to clause 19.2.1, if the dispute could not be resolved within that period, “either party may submit the dispute to arbitration,” to be conducted under the ICC
Read More
August 18, 2026
Securing a favorable judgment is often only the midpoint of a dispute. For businesses and investors, the more important commercial question is whether that judgment can be converted into actual recovery. In Thailand, this typically requires the judgment creditor to enforce the judgment through the Legal Execution Department by seizing, attaching, auctioning, or otherwise executing against the judgment debtor’s assets. Thailand’s schedule of these enforcement fees was last revised by an amendment to the Civil Procedure Code that took effect in September 2025. The Civil Procedure Code Amendment Act (No. 33) B.E. 2568 (2025) updated the schedule of execution officer fees listed in table 5 of the Civil Procedure Code. While the amendment did not eliminate the costs associated with enforcement, it lowered several key execution officer fees and abolished certain fees that previously applied even where enforcement did not ultimately result in the sale or disposition of assets. The reform is intended to reduce the financial burden associated with judgment enforcement and remove unnecessary obstacles to settlement once enforcement proceedings have commenced. As a result, it has practical implications not only for judgment creditors seeking to maximize recovery, but also for debtors considering settlement after enforcement has begun and for businesses and investors assessing litigation and credit risk in Thailand. Key Changes The amendment introduced several changes to the execution officer fee structure. First, where seized or attached assets are sold by public auction or otherwise disposed of, the execution officer fee has been reduced from 3% to 2% of the sale or disposition proceeds. This fee remains separate from announcement costs and other out-of-pocket expenses incurred during the enforcement process. Second, where seized or attached funds are paid to a judgment creditor, the execution officer fee has been reduced from 2% to 1% of the amount recovered.
Read More