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​ 

September 23, 2024
The General Department of Customs and Excise (GDCE) in Cambodia’s Ministry of Economy and Finance launched a trial phase of its Intellectual Property Rights Recordation System (IPRRS) on September 1, 2024. The system compiles necessary information and documents related to intellectual property rights in the country, enabling customs authorities to swiftly access these documents and enhance their ability to identify and intercept potential parallel imports and infringing goods at the border. This will also better facilitate ex-officio actions by customs authorities. The system is currently referred to as being in a “trial phase” to support further amendments or updates to address any potential technical errors that may arise from public use. However, the IPRRS is already fully operational. Types of Recordation Currently, the IPRRS allows two types of recordation: Intellectual property recordation is available for trademarks, geographical indications, copyrights, and related rights that are protected in Cambodia. It allows IP owners, authorized representatives, and legal representatives to record information and documents relating to such rights, including information on possible or potential counterfeit goods, with the GDCE. Recordation will give customs authorities quicker access to the information and enable them to promptly take action against potential counterfeit or infringing goods. Exclusive distributorship recordation is meant to streamline the process that takes place after the Ministry of Commerce issues a notice of the recordation of exclusive rights. Under the current practice, after receiving a copy of a notice of the recordal of an exclusive distributorship issued by the Ministry of Commerce (MOC), the GDCE needs to enter the information into their system manually to enable them to promptly identify or stop potential parallel importation at the border. This reportedly causes delays in border officers’ access to the necessary information. Recordation through the IPRRS, on the other hand, allows local exclusive distributors
Read More
September 9, 2024
The popularity of the franchise business model has been growing rapidly in Southeast Asia in recent years, with some of the world’s top brands becoming common sights in the commercial districts and shopping malls of major regional cities in Cambodia, Indonesia, Laos, Myanmar, Thailand, and Vietnam. While for most countries in this part of the world, franchising has not been explicitly mentioned in legislation, well prepared franchise business operations can comfortably adapt to each country’s regulatory framework, and the growth is poised to continue even as the global retail sector redesigns and redoubles its efforts in the wake of the COVID-19 outbreak. In fact, the franchise business model, which is both global and hyper-local at once, is one of the most promising solutions that entrepreneurs are turning to in their quest to overcome the challenges of the new economic reality. The Regional Guide to Franchising Law in Southeast Asia provides key, up-to-date insights into the legal frameworks regulating franchise operations in these Southeast Asian countries, and helps brand owners understand the most relevant laws, authorities, and procedures for their business. Some of the essential topics covered for each jurisdiction include considerations in negotiating and designing franchise agreements, protecting intellectual property rights, and important information on judicial and arbitral procedures should a dispute arise between franchisor and franchisee. Practitioners from Tilleke & Gibbins’ offices in Cambodia, Indonesia, Laos, Myanmar, Thailand, and Vietnam contributed to guide—not only by providing legal expertise on the laws and mechanisms applicable in each jurisdiction, but also by examining strategies for establishing and running resilient franchise operations in Southeast Asia. The full guide can be accessed as a PDF through the button below.
Read More
August 30, 2024
As in many other countries, registered trademarks in Indonesia that are not used for a given period of time can be canceled. A recent decision (Decision No. 144/PUU-XXI/2023) from the country’s Constitutional Court has extended the non-use cancellation period from three years to five years, applicable from July 30, 2024. This ruling could have a major impact on trademark holders in the country. Background of the Case Article 74 of Indonesia’s Trademark Law of 2016 specifies that trademarks can be canceled if they go unused in the trade of goods or services for three consecutive years from the date of registration or last use. This provision is aligned with the Paris Convention and the TRIPs Agreement. On October 27, 2023, an Indonesian individual named Ricky Thio asked the Constitutional Court to examine the constitutionality of Article 74, arguing that it opened a pathway for third parties to eliminate trademarks owned by small and medium-sized enterprises (SMEs), and did not provide certainty to his registered trademark in terms of the period of protection. Additionally, he argued that the period of three consecutive years was burdensome for SMEs, and asked the court to void Article 74 and add force majeure circumstances—such as Covid-19—as an exemption to non-use cancellation. Mr. Thio submitted this request while he was defending his trademark registration from a non-use cancellation request filed by Zhejiang Dahua Technology Co., Ltd. In his defense to that cancellation request, Mr. Thio explained that the non-use of the trademark was due to the Covid-19 pandemic. The cancellation case followed a different judicial pathway, and was under appeal before the Supreme Court at the time Mr. Thio filed his request for judicial review with the Constitutional Court. Mr. Thio’s case also attracted the submission of an amicus brief—a relatively new trend in Indonesia—from
Read More
August 30, 2024
In 2023, Vietnam’s Intellectual Property Rights Infringement Prevention Cooperation Program reported that 776 cases of IPR infringement were resolved nationwide. Of these, 546 were addressed through administrative measures, while criminal proceedings were initiated in just five cases. These statistics clearly show that administrative measures overwhelmingly dominate the response to counterfeit goods, with criminal actions being relatively rare. This raises an intriguing question: Why do IPR holders prefer administrative routes over criminal measures in Vietnam? And what challenges and obstacles make criminal enforcement less commonly pursued in these cases? Overlapping legal provisions Under Vietnam’s Penal Code, two key offenses address counterfeit goods: Manufacturing and trading in counterfeit goods under Article 192. Manufacturing and trading in industrial property rights-infringing goods under Article 226. Both provisions regulate counterfeit goods, yet they suffer from a lack of clear definitions and guidelines for application. Article 192 does not explicitly define “counterfeit goods”. Instead, authorities refer to Article 3.7 of Decree No. 98/2020/ND-CP, as amended, which outlines several categories of counterfeit goods, including: (i) utility counterfeits (goods not meeting normal expectations of usage or function), (ii) substandard goods, (iii) counterfeit goods based on misrepresentation, and (iv) counterfeit stamps, labels, and packaging. Meanwhile, Article 226 specifically deals with counterfeit goods that infringe trademark rights. These “trademark-counterfeit goods” are defined under Article 213.2 of the IP Law as goods or packaging bearing trademarks or signs that are identical or confusingly similar to protected trademarks for the same goods, used without the trademark owner’s permission. In this regard, “counterfeit goods” and “trademark-counterfeit goods” are treated as distinct, non-overlapping concepts, each corresponding to a separate offense. However, in practice, there is often a gray area where the two overlap. Many cases involve infringing goods that meet the criteria for both categories, allowing authorities to apply both regulations simultaneously. For
Read More