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 22, 2024

Positive Signs for IP Appeal Settlement in Vietnam

Subscribe to Updates
Managing Intellectual Property

Appeals of unfavorable decisions on protection in the IP field are very common in Vietnam. In 2023, there were 845 appeals filed at the IP Office, including 780 trademark appeals. In most cases, however, applicants view the appeal procedure as almost a last resort, as the lengthy examination process can lead to serious delays in appeal settlement. In fact, it can take four to seven years, or even longer, for an appeal to be resolved, and a disappointingly low number of cases are settled each year, despite the towering number of appeals pending. Nonetheless, there are reasons for optimism.

Inspection and Appeal Department

On 1 July 2024, the IP Office issued Decision No. 575/QD-SHTT promulgating the Regulations on Organization and Operation of the Inspection and Appeal Department – formerly the Enforcement and Appeal Department – whose functions include, among others, advising and assisting the Director General of the IP Office in resolving appeals related to the process of establishing IP rights.

The Inspection and Appeal Department has the duty to handle appeals and denunciations related to the process of establishing IP rights, as well as requests for termination and cancellation of the validity of registrations. In addition, it can provide expert opinions, and appoint knowledgeable personnel to participate in the IP Office’s Advisory Council to settle appeals.

While the renamed department’s responsibilities do not differ greatly, on paper, from those of the previous Enforcement and Appeal Department, the issuance of new regulations indicates the IP Office’s renewed focus on the importance of improving the appeal procedure.

Scope of IP appeals expanded

In addition, in November 2023, the Ministry of Science and Technology issued Circular No. 23/2023/TT-BKHCN (“Circular 23”) providing further guidance for implementation of the amended 2022 IP Law and its subordinate legislation. Article 35 of Circular 23 has clarified and extended the list of decisions and notifications that can be appealed under the IP Law.

As a result, the subjects of appeal proceedings under Circular 23 now clearly include relevant decisions pertaining to international industrial designs, decisions involving the first appeal by the IP Office, and other decisions or notices that meet the criteria specified in the laws on complaints. Furthermore, granting decisions for IP objects which are subject to an invalidation action can also be appealed – an option that was not previously available.

Circular 23 also clarifies other decisions that cannot be appealed and other contents that are not accepted in appeal procedures.

Definition of “new facts” remains uncertain

While appeals in the IP field are handled by the IP Office, they are subject to the Law on Complaints and Denunciations, which governs general complaints. Generally, under the Law on Complaints and Denunciations, “new facts or circumstances” are not accepted during the appeal period. This principle has also been extended to IP appeals. Specifically, under the previous IP circular, “new facts that have not been presented by the applicant … during the application examination process, which may change the appealed decision” are not accepted in the appeal procedure. This no-new-fact principle is not entirely suitable for many IP cases, such as cases with a letter of consent is newly obtained, or where an expiry date for a citation has passed the 3-year threshold by the time of the appeal.

Circular 23 seems to loosen the application of this principle. Specifically, under the wording of the new circular, the only “new facts” that are explicitly not accepted at the appeal stage are those that already existed during the application’s examination period but which, for some objective reason, the IP Office and other relevant parties did not learn about after the decision on granting or refusal was issued, unless the new fact is introduced by a third party (who is not the applicant or registration-seeker).

From this wording, one can interpret that facts that did not exist during the examination period but occurred prior to the time of the appeal, such as a newly obtained letter of consent, do not fall into the above provision and could be accepted at the appeal stage. As appeal cases take a very long time to be settled, and Circular 23 is just several months old, there is not yet any precedent regarding this new-fact issue. IP appeals are still generally subject to the Law on Complaints and Denunciations. Thus, clarification and guidance from the IP Office may still be required to clear up any doubt.

Outlook

Circular 23 and Decision 575 have shed more light on the IP appeal procedure. In addition, some improvements in the IP Office’s settlement of cases have been recently observed. For example, for faster delivery of original notifications/decisions, the IP Office has begun to first send soft copies of its notifications via email to applicants/IP agents, then sending the originals by courier. With this step, communication between the IP Office and applicants/IP agents has become timelier.

There is hope that appeal settlement may soon be improved as well.

This article first appeared in Managing Intellectual Property.

Related Professionals

Practices

Intellectual Property

Location

RELATED INSIGHTS​ 

July 12, 2022
Before the issuance in late 2019 of the Trade Competition Commission of Thailand’s Guidelines on Unfair Trade Practices in Franchise Businesses, which took effect in February 2020, Thai law made little mention of franchising as a business model—despite the great popularity of franchising in the country. The guidelines, which were issued under the Trade Competition Act B.E. 2560 (2017), partly made up for the absence of a single, codified franchising law in the country and offered valuable direction on how franchisors and franchisees should operate in compliance with Thai law. One of the most significant conditions introduced by the original guidelines in February 2020 was a requirement for franchisors to provide a right of first refusal to their existing franchisees before opening a new franchise outlet within current franchisees’ operating vicinity. An update to the guidelines addressing the right of first refusal was issued in August 2020. Most recently, a second update was announced on July 13, 2021. It was published in the Government Gazette on August 19, 2021, and came into force on the following day. The August 2021 update further revised this provision, and the updated guidelines now adopt a less restrictive approach for franchisors in relation to this first-refusal requirement. Under the updated guidelines, a franchisor who decides to open a new outlet, whether it will be operated by the franchisor or by another franchisee or person, must notify the existing franchisee located in closest proximity to the intended location, and provide the franchisee with a right of first refusal for a period of 30 days. However, the franchisor does not have to provide the closest franchisee with a right of first refusal if the franchisee’s existing performance does not meet the franchisor’s criteria as specified and communicated to the franchisee in advance. In determining what
Read More
July 11, 2022
Background In Thailand, as in other countries, there are many possible legal grounds for the cancellation of registered trademarks. The non-use ground, under Section 63 of the Trademark Act, has long been one of the most challenging grounds for petitioners to achieve. Section 63 provides that any interested party can ask the Board of Trademarks to cancel a trademark registration if they can provide proof that, at the time of the application, the proprietor of the mark had no intent of using it for the designated goods. The party requesting cancellation must also show that, in the three years prior to the cancellation request, the mark had not been used in good faith for the goods for which it is registered. The proprietor of the trademark can defend itself against the cancellation request by proving that non-use was unintentional and was due to “exceptional circumstances in the trade”. One of the reasons why non-use cancellation has been challenging in Thailand is that the Trademark Act does not prescribe the exact timeframe within which a mark must be used after it has been registered. Therefore, in some cases the Board of Trademarks found that the mere argument that the trademark owner had plans to use the mark in the future was suf cient to dismiss a non-use cancellation petition, even though the owner did not provide any proof to verify this. Recent Board of Trademarks decision In this case, a petitioner’s trademark application was rejected by the trademark registrar for being confusingly similar to a registered trademark. The petitioner then led a request for non-use cancellation against the cited trademark. At the same time, the petitioner decided to remove from its own trademark application the services that appeared to overlap with some of the goods connected to the registered trademark.
Read More
July 6, 2022
Patent is an essential piece of the amended Law on Intellectual Property (“Amended IP Law”), which was passed by the National Assembly of Vietnam on June 16, 2022, and will take effect on January 1, 2023 (except for the regulation on protection of experimental data for agrochemical products, which will take delayed effect on January 14, 2024). Among the amended and supplemented contents of the Amended IP Law, there are notable patent-related amendments to Article 60 on assessing the novelty of inventions and Article 96 on grounds for invalidating patent protection titles. We discuss these changes below. Secret Prior Art Under Article 60.1 A significant amendment to Clause 1, Article 60 of the Amended IP Law on the novelty of inventions is to broaden the scope under which an invention can be considered to have lost its novelty. For the first time in Vietnam, “secret prior art” –a patent application with an earlier filing date or priority date but published on or after the filing date or priority date of an examined patent application – is introduced as a prior art document. In the diagram above, at the time of filing of the A2 application, secret prior art A1 has been filed but not yet published, making it inaccessible to the public. At this point, only the A1 applicant and the IP Office are aware of the A1 application. Under the current provisions of the 2005 IP Law, as amended in 2009 and 2019, the A1 patent application is not eligible to be a prior art document when assessing the novelty of A2. However, based on the “first-to-file principle” and the principle of priority, the IP Office has still had other approaches to bar the patentability of an A2 patent application if there is such an A1 application. By
Read More
July 5, 2022
The recently approved comprehensive revisions to Vietnam’s Law on Intellectual Property (“Amended IP Law”) mark the most significant changes to Vietnam’s intellectual property regime since the last time the IP Law was revised more than a decade ago, in 2009, affecting 80 out of 222 articles and introducing 12 new ones. The National Assembly of Vietnam approved the Amended IP Law on June 16, 2022, and, except for a few provisions, it will take effect on January 1, 2023. Some notable points of the revised law regarding trademark matters include: 1. Protection of Sound Marks To fulfill Vietnam’s commitments as part of the CPTPP, the Amended IP Law adds sound marks to the list of signs eligible for protection as trademarks. However, to more easily examine these non-traditional marks, the law provides that sound marks must be able to be presented in graphical representations. Article 73.7 was also supplemented to include a ground for refusal of sound marks that comprise “copies [in whole or part] of copyrighted works, unless with consent from the copyright holders”. This provision is wide-reaching and may be used in many cases apart from those involving sound marks, and it is expected to better secure copyright in broad terms. 2. Definition of Well-Known Mark Article 4.20 modifies the definition of a well-known mark to mean one that is “widely known by the relevant sectors of the public in the territory of Vietnam” instead of the old general definition of “widely known by consumers throughout the territory of Vietnam”. This new definition is in line with international standards, and with this positive step, and the chances of trademark owners having their marks recognized as well-known marks in Vietnam should increase. The Amended IP Law also clarifies that well-known status must be acquired before the filing date
Read More