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​ 

January 12, 2023
Experts from Tilleke & Gibbins’ intellectual property team have written the Vietnam chapter of Practical Law’s Intellectual Property Transactions Global Guide 2022, a high-level comparative overview of intellectual property laws and regulations across more than 30 jurisdictions. The Intellectual Property Transactions Global Guide focuses on business-related aspects of intellectual property, such as the value of intellectual assets in M&A transactions, and the licensing of IP portfolios. The topics covered include the following: IP assignment IP licensing Research and development collaborations IP audits IP aspects of M&A Lending and security interests Settlement agreements Employee and consultant agreements Key issues in IP transactions To read the Vietnam chapter, please visit the Practical Law website or click on the link below.
Read More
January 4, 2023
In early November 2022, a Thai appeals court overruled the Trademark Registrar’s decision and the Board of Trademarks’ ruling by upholding the registrability of an oil company’s trademark application for its branded service station layout. This is the latest word in a long-running dispute between ExxonMobil and the country’s Department of Intellectual Property (DIP), which had previously rejected the mark as indistinctive. ExxonMobil first filed applications in April 2015 for a trademark bearing a unique colorful drawing of the layout of a service station bearing its well-known registered “ESSO” mark in International Classes 4 and 35 in Thailand. However, the Thai Trademark Registrar refused to register the mark, arguing that the mark was devoid of inherent distinctiveness because the service station layout drawing is directly descriptive of the applied-for goods and services related to oil products. According to the Registrar, the public would not be able to distinguish between the goods and services bearing ExxonMobil’s mark and those bearing the marks of others. ExxonMobil appealed this refusal to the Board of Trademarks, which ultimately agreed that ExxonMobil’s marks are devoid of inherent distinctiveness. The Board explained that the dominant elements in the drawing consist of a common service station with fuel dispensers, which is directly related to the applied-for goods and services related to oil products. The Board also deemed that the submitted evidence was insufficient to prove that the mark had gained distinctiveness through use. ExxonMobil disagreed with these rulings and thus filed a civil complaint with the Intellectual Property and International Trade Court (IP&IT Court) to revoke the Registrar’s decisions and the Board’s rulings. The IP&IT Court examined the case and issued its judgment in favor of ExxonMobil, ruling that the marks are inherently distinctive. The Court noted that to consider a mark’s distinctiveness, it is crucial
Read More
January 4, 2023
In decisions dated 29 September 2022, the Lao Department of Intellectual Property (DIP) has cancelled two trademark registrations based on their confusing similarity to earlier marks. An official from the DIP unofficially confirmed that these decisions are the first of their kind in Laos and, as such, constitute a positive step that puts legal provisions into actual practice. Background In Laos, cancellation proceedings against a registered mark are not common, as the number of applications in the country is relatively low and thorough substantive examination only began to be carried out in recent years. There was previously no precedent for how cancellation decisions would be handled, despite the Law on Intellectual Property (No. 38/NA of 15 November 2017) allowing a third party to file a petition for the cancellation of a registered mark if it can be proven that the mark should not be granted registration. The Law on Intellectual Property states that a third party may object to, or request the cancellation of, a trademark registration within five years of its date of publication in the Official Gazette. However, it is difficult to ascertain how to calculate the five-year period if the mark was registered before June 2019, as publication in the Official Gazette was first made available at that time. This could mean that the five-year statutory limitation for trademark cancellation in Laos could start from June 2024, but how this will be applied in practice remains to be seen. The Case This case began when Siam Kubota Corporation Co Ltd took action against two marks that looked similar to its own earlier marks (see Figure 1): Figure 1. Earlier registered marks Siam Kubota registered its marks in 2009 for goods in Class 12, and has extensively used and protected the marks in Laos. After reviewing its
Read More
December 22, 2022
Rules for franchising in Indonesia were first published in 1997 through a government regulation and a ministerial decree, which was subsequently amended several times. The franchising regulations currently in effect are Government Regulation No. 42 of 2007 concerning Franchises and Regulation issued by the Minister of Trade No. 71 of 2019 concerning the Implementation of Franchising (MOT No. 71 of 2019). Franchises in Indonesia must meet certain criteria that distinguish them from other types of businesses, and franchising must be based on a franchise agreement governed by Indonesian law. Prior to entering into a franchise agreement, a franchisor must provide a prospectus (disclosure document) to the prospective franchisee at least two weeks before the execution of the franchise agreement so that the prospective franchisee has sufficient time to review the reputation and goodwill of the franchisor through the prospectus. The prospectus must contain various details about the franchise business, its management, its operations, and other relevant aspects. Both local and foreign franchisors must obtain a franchise registration certificate—referred to as an STPW—from the Ministry of Trade before offering their franchises to prospective franchisees. The franchisee is also required to obtain an STPW. The STPW for the franchisor is the proof of prospectus registration, while the STPW for the franchisee is the proof of registration of the franchise agreement. Franchisors and franchisees who have STPWs are required to submit reports on franchise business activities to the Ministry of Trade’s director of business development and distribution by the end of June each year. Up to three written warnings will be served on a franchisor or franchisee who does not comply with the registration requirements. A fine of up to IDR 100 million (approx. USD 6,400) will be imposed if the franchisor or franchisee fails to respond to the warnings. MOT No.
Read More