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​ 

September 24, 2025
Online shopping in Thailand is more accessible than ever, with global platforms, local social media shops, and entertainment-driven social commerce enabling instant purchases. However, this convenience comes with rising concerns over digital intellectual property (IP) infringement, including counterfeit goods, pirated content, and unauthorized brand usage. At first glance, online platforms appear to offer quick solutions. Most major e-commerce sites, social media channels, and social commerce platforms provide “notice and takedown” systems, where IP owners can file complaints and request the removal of listings that infringe IP rights, such as trademarks and copyrights. These tools are certainly useful, as seeing a fake product vanish from a platform feels like progress. But the reality is less reassuring. The counterfeit goods themselves remain in warehouses, markets, or shops, ready to be resold. Sellers whose accounts are taken down often return within days under new names or accounts. In other words, a takedown is like cutting weeds without pulling out the roots: they always grow back. While notice and takedown tools are widely available and can be managed internally by most IP owners, their impact is often short-lived. IP owners seeking more effective, lasting protection need to take a more strategic and multilayered approach. The same applies to online piracy. Unauthorized streaming websites that offer free access to movies, TV shows, or sports broadcasts have become widespread in Thailand. To combat this, rightsholders can request website blocking under the Computer Crime Act, through the Ministry of Digital Economy and Society and the courts. Once requests are approved, internet service providers are ordered to block access to infringing sites. Blocking orders can be effective in disrupting large-scale piracy operations, but they also face limitations—pirate sites frequently reappear under new domains. Strategic Protection Whether the infringing material is physical counterfeit goods or intangible streaming content,
Read More
September 4, 2025
On June 6, 2025, the Superior People’s Court in Hanoi overturned a non-use cancellation decision by the Intellectual Property Office of Vietnam, a rare and impactful occurrence. In a ruling that may help clarify the enforcement of Vietnam’s IP Law, the court held that valid trademark use can be established through commercial arrangements where the brand owner maintains actual control over the use of the mark, and is not confined to relationships governed by a so-called “formal license agreement. Background: Cross-Border Use, Local Challenge A Singapore company owns a well-known brand of consumer products that has gained recognition across Southeast Asia. In recent years, the brand has been targeted by several unauthorized trademark filings in Vietnam. In one such instance, a local Vietnamese trading company—previously linked to the production and export of counterfeit goods to neighboring countries—filed a non-use cancellation against the Singapore company’s mark and sought to register it under its own name. If the cancellation had been upheld, it would have enabled a complete hijacking of the brand. The IP holder operates in Vietnam through a structured cross-border supply chain. Under an agreement between two related foreign entities, one of which managed regional operations, production orders were placed through a designated Vietnamese company. While the Vietnamese manufacturer was not a party to the agreement, its role in using the mark was recognized and governed by internal and commercial documentation. The Vietnamese manufacturer lawfully obtained the necessary permits, regulatory approvals, and customs clearances for producing the goods in Vietnam. These activities were supported by banking records and internal communications, evidencing active, continuous use of the mark in Vietnam. However, the IP Office concluded that this use did not meet the statutory criteria because the Vietnamese manufacturer did not have a direct license agreement with the brand owner, as
Read More
August 25, 2025
Indonesia’s current regulations on franchises, as stipulated under Government Regulation No. 35/2024 on Franchising and its implementing regulation, Ministry of Trade (MOT) Regulation No. 71/2019 regarding Implementation of Franchising, highlight fundamental changes in franchise registration. These changes have introduced additional complexities and challenges in the franchise registration procedure, making it more difficult for franchise owners to navigate the process. New procedure Franchise applications are still submitted through the Online Single Submission (OSS) portal of the Capital Investment Coordinating Board (BKPM). However, the new procedure requires each applicant, including foreign franchisors, to have an OSS account and a business registration number (NIB) issued by BKPM. An application for franchise registration must be submitted under the applicant’s own account—submissions can no longer be made through the account of a consultant. Once a franchise application is submitted, the authority will distribute the submission to the MOT—the authorized ministry for franchise registration. Any notification or decision upon the registration made by the MOT will be available in the OSS system. Applicants should regularly monitor the status of the franchise application because no notifications will be sent to applicants to alert them of any deficiency. Here is the summary of the new procedure for franchisors: Notable Requirements The disclosure document, or prospectus, is the key focus for the MOT in examining a franchise registration for a franchisor. This document is subject to thorough scrutiny by the MOT to ensure that all mandatory information meets the requirements set in the franchise regulations. The current regulations specifically require that the mandatory clause “business system” in the prospectus cover operational standards and procedures, which should include human resource management, administration, operational management, standard operating methods, business location selection, business premises design, employee requirements, and marketing strategies. Other clauses that are equally important to pay attention to are:
Read More
August 21, 2025
Although the “passing off” principle has sometimes faced criticism for potentially broadening trademark protection—particularly in cases involving unregistered or unconventional marks like shapes, scents, or sounds—it serves an essential purpose. It safeguards the rights of business owners and shields consumers from deception, ensuring fair competition and reflecting the realities of modern commerce. What is passing off, and why is registrability not required? The passing-off principle is a legal concept rooted in English law, aimed at preventing a person from falsely representing or using a mark similar to another’s in a way that causes consumers to mistakenly believe the goods or services come from the same source. Under Thai law, the passing-off principle is provided under Section 46 of the Thai Trademark Act, which states: No person shall be entitled to bring legal proceedings to prevent or to recover damages for the infringement of an unregistered trademark. The provisions of this Section shall not affect the right of the owner of an unregistered trademark to bring legal proceedings against any person for passing off goods as those of the owner of the trademark. The passing-off principle can be interpreted as a practical legal concept. It does not require proof that the mark is registrable or meets the registrability criteria under trademark law. It is sufficient to show that the mark has established goodwill and that the other party’s use of a similar mark is likely to confuse consumers, making it a straightforward and effective tool for protecting brand assets. Requiring a claimant to prove that an unregistered mark could have been registered would undermine the very function of passing off. The doctrine was conceived precisely to fill the gaps left by the registration system. Imposing registrability criteria would nullify its function and leave many commercially valuable identifiers unprotected. If the
Read More