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 1, 2019

Newly Signed EU-Vietnam Free Trade Agreement to Improve IP Protection in Vietnam

Subscribe to Updates

On June 30, 2019, in Hanoi, representatives from the European Union and Vietnam officially signed the historic EU-Vietnam Free Trade Agreement (EVFTA), a comprehensive and mutually beneficial agreement in which thoughtful consideration was given to the development gap between the two parties. The ambitious agreement includes a number of provisions on intellectual property, which we discuss below.

Patent

Patent Law Treaty: Under the EVFTA, each party will simplify and develop its patent registration procedures using, inter alia, the multilateral Patent Law Treaty (PLT) as a reference point, though to date neither Vietnam nor the EU are contracting states of the PLT. This regulation is considered reasonable for both parties to develop their patent regimes in the same direction. Accordingly, it is anticipated that Vietnam’s IP Law as amended in the future will be affected by the PLT.

Patent Term Extension/Restoration: As set out in the EVFTA, for the first time, when a patent owner suffers from unreasonable delays from an authorized office while requesting marketing authorization, the member countries will have to adjust the patent term to make up for such delay. As Vietnam has been cited as having “concerning marketing approval delays” for human drug products, it is certain that the regulations will be amended/supplemented to add a mechanism under which patent protection for human drugs may be extended beyond a 20-year term.

Design

The Vietnam design system is an examination system, and the scope of design protection is quite narrow at present. For example, for a normal design, seven basic views must be submitted and partial designs (inseparable parts of products) are not protected. Under the EVFTA, there will likely be many changes.

The Hague Agreement: Vietnam must participate in the Geneva Act (1999) of the Hague Agreement within two years from the date when the EVFTA takes effect. Vietnam has recently taken steps to prepare for participating in this agreement, so participation is expected to be concluded soon. When participating in this agreement, applicants will benefit from, for example, having more options, and requirements are more flexible.

Partial designs: Under Article 12.35.1, Footnotes 7 and 9 of the EVFTA, it should be understood that Vietnam will protect partial designs. Vietnam currently protects only whole designs (the whole product or a separable part/component of a product); the protection of partial design has been a controversial topic for many years. If Vietnam protects partial designs, it will be more favorable to the application of the Hague Agreement.

Visibility: According to the EVFTA, for designs of components of a complex product, only designs and features of designs that are visible during normal use of the product are protected. Normal use excludes maintenance, service, or repair work. This provision is similar to the regulations of the EUIPO on designs. Vietnam has issued corresponding regulations on visibility of designs. Nevertheless, the protection of visible features should be clarified, either by new laws or by changes in practice.

Protection of designs as copyrighted works: According to the EVFTA, a design is also eligible for protection under the laws on copyright as from the date on which the design was created or fixed in any form. Vietnam’s current IP Law generally meets the EVFTA regulations; however, there are some gaps. For example, the laws are silent as to the level of originality required for a work to be eligible for protection.

Trademark

Among the few trademark issues raised by the EVFTA, the most notable is the concept of “genuine use,” which is an international standard but is absent from Vietnam’s current IP Law. Specifically, the EVFTA requests the parties to provide that a registered trademark will be liable to revocation (termination) if, within a continuous period of five years prior to a request for revocation, it has not been put to genuine use by its owner or the owner’s licensee in the relevant territory in connection with the goods or services in respect of which it is registered, without justifiable reasons, except where the use is commenced or resumed at least three months before the request for revocation.

As Vietnam’s current IP Law does not specifically mention the scale or type of use required to defend a mark from a non-use cancellation action, many marks survive the non-use action based on some token use only. The introduction of this requirement may help to clear the register from marks that are not genuinely used by the mark owners.

Further, the EVFTA also sets out a requirement that the parties may provide that a trademark can be subject to revocation if, after the date on which it was registered, it has become, as a result of acts or inactivity of the proprietor, the common (generic) name in the trade for a product or service in respect of which it is registered. While such revocation/termination is not a rare occurrence in Vietnam, the IP Law does not specifically mention this possibility for revocation. The EVFTA’s requirement on this matter is helpful to formalize the practice and provide more certainty in legal action for the interested parties.

Geographical Indications

According to Annex 12A of the EVFTA, 171 EU GIs and 39 Vietnamese GIs have been protected without going through the standard registration process. However, in general, a geographical indication (GI) must pass a standard registration process with the Vietnam Intellectual Property Office to be protected in Vietnam.

Such protection may be rejected if there is a homonymous GI which may mislead consumers. Although Vietnam has the right to decide on the conditions in which homonymous GIs are considered different from each other, the current regulations are silent on this issue.

The EVFTA also provides a grandfather clause for certain GIs for cheese and wine, which shows the effort to harmonize the rights of stakeholders from different jurisdictions.

Enforcement of IP Rights

In general, the EVFTA sets out a higher standard for IP enforcement for Vietnam. For example, the EVFTA requires the active involvement of customs authorities in targeting and identifying shipments containing imported/exported goods suspected of infringing IP rights. Although the current IP Law does not have any conflict with this provision under the EVFTA, at present, IP rights holders typically need to be proactive to ensure the full involvement of the customs authorities.

The EVFTA also requires customs authorities to cooperate with rights holders, including allowing the provision of information for risk analysis, which is not yet mentioned under the current IP Law. In addition, there are numerous enforcement issues raised by the EVFTA which will require the IP Law to be amended and supplemented to be compatible with the EVFTA, such as the application of provisional measures, and presumption of authorship or ownership.

Outlook

Vietnam is engaging in a major project of reviewing the results of implementation of the 2005 IP Law with an eye on a comprehensive amendment of this law in the near future. It is expected that the changes mentioned above will be included in the potential amended IP Law in 2020 as the result of the review project.

Related Professionals

Practices

Intellectual Property

Location

RELATED INSIGHTS​ 

June 16, 2026
Since the implementation of the Trademark Law 2019 on April 1, 2023, Myanmar has operated under a modern first-to-file trademark system that brings its registration framework closer to international practice. As the new regime continues to develop in practice, applicants are increasingly required to navigate formal examination requirements, substantive objections, and procedural deadlines with greater precision. This article provides a high-level review of the trademark examination process in Myanmar, focusing on the principal stages from initial review to approval, the types of objections commonly raised by the Intellectual Property Department (IPD), and the key considerations for responding effectively. A clear understanding of these issues is essential for applicants seeking to secure registration efficiently and to mitigate avoidable delays or refusals. Examination Process: Key Stages Trademark applications filed with the IPD undergo two stages of review. Formality Examination The IPD first verifies compliance with procedural requirements, including: Correct Nice Classification Clear mark representation Accurate applicant details Clearly defined goods or services Representative details, if the application is filed by a representative Other formality requirements cover translation and transliteration of any non-English or non-Myanmar elements in the mark, color claim details, applicable disclaimers, and payment of official fees. Deficiencies result in an office action requiring correction within 30 days, which may be extended upon request. Registrability Examination The IPD also assesses registrability. A mark may be refused if it: Lacks distinctiveness Is descriptive or generic Misleads the public or violates public order/morality Contains prohibited state symbols Only compliant applications proceed to publication. Responding to Office Actions Applicants must respond within 30 days of notification from the IPD. Depending on the nature of the objection, strategies may include submitting legal arguments for distinctiveness, providing evidence of acquired distinctiveness, filing appropriate disclaimers, clarifying descriptions such as color claims, or amending the listed goods
Read More
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