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

April 23, 2019

Vietnam Investment Review: CPTPP Obligations Alter Vietnam’s IP Landscape

Subscribe to Updates
Vietnam Investment Review (VIR)

Due to significant changes to the intellectual property (IP) landscape, the Comprehensive and Progressive Agreement for Trans-Pacific Partnership (CPTPP) indeed poses major challenges to Vietnam in implementing its obligations. Most of the obligations aim to enhance protection for IP proprietors. This will have a particular impact on the life science sectors, benefitting foreign pharmaceutical and agrochemical companies but reducing opportunities, at least in the short-term, for Vietnamese companies.

The obligations under the CPTPP are widespread. The IP chapter of the agreement is the only chapter with obligations affecting both CPTPP members and other member countries of the World Trade Organization. Non-bloc countries with strong IP-based economies such as the EU and the US still enjoy protection at the same level as other CPTPP members.

Vietnam is turning to Industry 4.0 to drive the economy forward, and some Vietnamese companies are now developing IP-oriented products. Thus, as IP serves as an engine for the economy, Vietnam should make the most of the opportunity the CPTPP affords across various areas, including those set out below.

Enforcement

Under the CPTPP, Vietnam must boost the effectiveness of its fight against IP infringement. To this end, Vietnam must assume responsibility for making the enforcement system more transparent and equitable, guaranteeing public access to all its rulings. More significantly, Vietnam must additionally criminalise some IP offenses such as wilful import or export of counterfeit trademark goods or pirated copyright goods, wilful import and domestic use of counterfeit labels or packaging, recording, and trade secret infringement.

Pursuant to a resolution of the National Assembly, Vietnam will amend the prevailing Penal Code in the next three years to codify these crimes. Vietnam would also leave out the requirement for a complaint from the IP owner to take criminal action against counterfeiting.

Regarding border control, the CPTPP requires that a right holder be provided with specific information about a shipment at issue. The CPTPP also allows an ex officio seizure of counterfeits in transit, in a two-year transition, and exports in a three-year transition.

This regulation clears up the doubt whether export of goods could constitute IP infringement. The regulation will also nullify the current relevant provision of the Law on Customs, which spares goods in transit from sanctions.

The pact also requires Vietnam to either pinpoint statutory damages or provide for punitive damages. Currently, no punitive damages are available in Vietnam. As to statutory damages, Article 205.1(c) of the Law on Intellectual Property allows the plaintiff to claim damages, which are capped at VND500 million ($21,739). However, to this end, in addition to the rationale for the claim, the plaintiff must prove that it cannot establish the actual damages. Thus, in fact, this provision has never been effective in practice, and on balance of convenience, courts often refuse to apply the provision.

Trademarks

Under the CPTPP, within three years, Vietnam must set up a mechanism to register sound trademarks, and do its best to register scent trademarks. Currently, the country only protects visible trademarks.

The country must also revisit its approach in recognising the well-known status of a trademark. Currently, authorities acknowledge the well-known status of a mark only if the mark acquires a very high degree of public knowledge from almost every walk of life, a practice that conflicts with the commitments in the CPTPP.

Licence Recordal

The CPTPP eliminates the requirement for registering a trademark licence to establish the validity of such licence against a third party. The draft bill emphasises this elimination, and also sets out that the use of the trademark by the licencee would inure to the benefit of the trademark owner. However, the bill does not specify whether the use of the trademark by companies economically related to the trademark owner, such as affiliates and subsidiaries, also amounts to authorised use.

Licences for other registered IP such as patents still need to be registered to be enforceable against a third party. This presents hurdles to business transactions due to the vague definition of the term “third party”. Any entity other than the signatories, including banks and tax authorities, can claim to be the third party to such license agreement, which may complicate the performance of obligations under unregistered licences.

Domain Name Disputes

Currently, domain name dispute resolution is itself a matter of dispute between duelling authorities. The Ministry of Science and Technology, which administers IP matters, and the Ministry of Information and Communication (MIC), which administers internet matters, have thus far been unable to reach an agreement to set up effective regimes for resolving disputes involving country code top-level domains.

The CPTPP requires Vietnam to set up such a regime. In line with this provision, the National Assembly passed a resolution to require an amendment to Article 130.1(d) on cybersquatting of the Law on Intellectual Property. However, the draft bill does not set out the amendment. Rather, the Ministry of Industry and Trade, which took charge of drafting the bill, recommended the MIC revise the relevant provisions in Decree No.72/2013/ND-CP to reflect the CPTPP’s requirement.

It seems that the battle of domain name disputes between the two ministries still lingers.

Other IP Subject Matters

The CPTPP significantly expands the grace period for patent novelty, from six months to 12 months. Vietnam will need to extend the exceptions for determining novelty when assessing the patentability of an invention. The agreement also alludes to protection of geographical indications, especially in connection with trademarks, and affords protection to the translation or transliteration of geographical indications.

Commitments to Specific Industries

In the agrochemical industry, Vietnam must ensure data exclusivity for undisclosed clinical trial data or other data for agricultural products for 10 years.

Particularly, Vietnam’s regulatory agency must not grant marketing approval to unauthorised parties, for example generic manufacturers, based on data concerning the safety and efficacy of an approved product that has been submitted by other parties in either Vietnam or in other countries. Vietnam has a 10-year transition period to implement this obligation.

In the pharmaceutical sector, Vietnam must also establish a patent linkage system in connection with the marketing approval process.

Balance of Enforcement

The CPTPP seems to create more balanced treatment for entities accused of IP infringement. When the court does not find infringement, the court can award the defendant reasonable legal fees that it spends for the suit. Under the prevailing Law on Intellectual Property, only the plaintiff is entitled to such legal fee award.

In addition, the pact also allows Vietnam to punish the abuse of IP rights by the owner. The draft bill supplements Article 198 of the prevailing Law on Intellectual Property to lay down such regulation. However, the supplemented article does not go into detail about how to determine the abuse.

Download Full Article
Related Professionals

Industries

Life Sciences

Practices

Intellectual Property

Regulatory Affairs

Location

RELATED INSIGHTS​ 

September 9, 2026
On August 5, 2026, the Consumer Case Division of Thailand’s Civil Court rendered a judgment in a case involving a beauty clinic that advertised acne scar treatments using claims that the clinic was operated by a specialist physician and that the treatment, allegedly involving stem cell technology, could permanently remove acne scars. The plaintiff brought a claim against both the physician-owner and the clinic company, alleging that the advertisements were false and induced her to purchase the treatment. The court found that the clinic was liable for the false representations and that the physician-owner, as both the authorized director of the company and the medical practitioner who provided treatment, was jointly responsible. Although the plaintiff could not fully prove all damages claimed, the court awarded compensation of THB 20,000, together with interest. While the judgment arose from a consumer protection dispute, it serves as a valuable reminder that medical facility advertisements in Thailand are regulated and may expose clinics and healthcare providers not only to regulatory enforcement but also to civil liability from patients who rely on misleading promotional claims. Regulatory Framework Governing Medical Facility Advertisements Medical facility advertising in Thailand is governed by the Medical Facility Act B.E. 2541 (1998), as amended by the Medical Facility Act (No. 4) B.E. 2559 (2016). The principal secondary legislation is the Department of Health Service Support (DoHSS) Notification Re: Rules, Procedures, Conditions, and Fees for an Advertisement or Publication Concerning a Medical Facility, which came into force on November 25, 2019. Under this notification, “advertising” includes any act, by any means, that causes members of the public to see, hear, or otherwise become aware of a message, sound, or image for the commercial benefit of a medical facility. This broad definition covers not only traditional media but also clinic websites, social
Read More
September 9, 2026
On June 30, 2026, Indonesia’s National Agency of Drug and Food Control (BPOM) issued BPOM Regulation No. 11 of 2026 on Food Packaging, which expands the list of approved food-contact substances and recognizes a broader range of permissible functions for those substances. The new regulation, which revokes BPOM Regulation No. 20 of 2019, reflects developments in packaging technology and materials science. Although the new regulation provides more advantages to business actors by adding more food contact substances to the approved list for use in food packaging, there are more stringent rules and restrictions for testing. One of the most significant changes is a comprehensive migration-testing framework that sets out requirements for packaging materials, testing conditions, food simulants, and specific migration limits. Overall and Specific Migration Under BPOM Regulation No. 20 of 2019, migration requirements were primarily set out within the lists of approved food-contact substances and packaging materials. BPOM Regulation No. 11 of 2026 instead expressly requires packaging materials that come into direct contact with food to meet both overall and specific migration limits. These are defined as follows: Overall migration: The total quantity of all substances that migrate from the packaging, regardless of whether the substances are hazardous or nonhazardous to health. Specific migration: The quantity of a particular identified substance known to be hazardous to health that migrates from the packaging. Stricter Limits on Heavy Metals The overall migration limit for plastic packaging remains unchanged under both regulations at 60 mg/kg or 10 mg/dm². However, the new regulation introduces significant changes to the regulation of heavy metals. Under the 2019 regulation, four heavy metals—lead, cadmium, chromium VI, and mercury—were subject to a single combined limit of 1 mg/kg. The 2026 regulation, however, requires each heavy metal to meet its own individual specific migration limit, adds arsenic as
Read More
September 7, 2026
Indonesia’s Constitutional Court (Mahkamah Konstitusi) has reinstated a key provision limiting pharmaceutical patent protection, signaling a renewed commitment to balancing patent rights with public access to medicines. In its ruling to Case No. 255/PUU-XXIII/2025, the court partially granted a petition for judicial review of Law No. 65 of 2024, which had amended the country’s Patent Law, and ordered the restoration of a provision that had excluded certain pharmaceutical inventions from patentability. The decision took effect immediately upon its pronouncement at the court’s plenary session on August 28, 2026. Background The petition challenged the removal of article 4(f) from Law No. 13 of 2016 concerning Patents (Patent Law), as amended by Law No. 65 of 2024. Article 4(f) had excluded from patentability certain inventions relating to new uses of known substances. The petitioners argued that removing this provision would open the door to patent protection for second medical use inventions and facilitate patent evergreening—practices that can extend exclusivity periods, delay generic market entry, and reduce public access to affordable medicines. The petitioners included several patient advocacy and public-interest organizations: the Indonesian Dialysis Patients Community Association, the Indonesian Association of Drug Abuse Victims (PKNI), the Indonesian Pulmonary Hypertension Foundation (YHPI), the Rekat Peduli Indonesia Foundation, and the Indonesian Positive Women’s Association (IPPI), along with the Indonesia for Global Justice Association and four individual petitioners. The petitioners also challenged the constitutionality of the phrase “interested party” in article 70(1) of the Patent Law, arguing that it should be construed expressly to clarify who has standing to appeal a decision to grant a patent before the Board of Patent Appeal, and to allow a broader range of parties—such as patent holders, licensees, consumer organizations, prosecutors, aggrieved third parties, and others who may suffer direct or indirect harm from the grant of a patent—to
Read More
September 4, 2026
Blind boxes and collectibles have become increasingly popular, driven by the excitement of not knowing which character or design will be revealed until the package is opened. While most visible in the art toy market, the same concept is also used in the food industry. Confectionery, snacks, and other food products are sometimes sold with toys, character figures, cards, or other collectibles. A package might, for example, contain one of ten possible characters, with consumers knowing that an item is included but not which one they will receive. Some collections may also feature rare or “secret” items. For food businesses, however, adding a randomized toy or collectible involves more than a marketing decision. The food, the nonfood item, and the randomized mechanism may each raise different regulatory considerations in Thailand. Thai FDA Requirements for Nonfood Objects Packaged with Food The main food regulatory consideration is Ministry of Public Health Notification No. 310 B.E. 2551 (2008), which regulates food packaged together with things or objects that are not food. Under Notification No. 310, certain nonfood objects may be packaged together with food where they fall within specified exceptions, including objects that serve the following purposes: Maintaining the quality or standard of the food, such as a desiccant or oxygen absorber; Serving as a seasoning or as part of food preparation, such as chili powder sachets or seasoning sachets contained in instant noodle packages; or Functioning as an eating or food-preparation utensil, such as a spoon or fork included with instant noodles. Other nonfood objects that do not fall within these categories generally should not be placed inside the food container together with the food. Where a toy, collectible, or other nonfood object is intended to be sold together with a food product, businesses should therefore carefully consider the nature of
Read More