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​ 

July 24, 2026
As food innovation continues to accelerate, manufacturers are increasingly introducing ingredients derived from new sources, produced using novel technologies, or lacking a significant history of human consumption. While these innovations create new opportunities for the food industry, they also raise important questions regarding consumer safety. For this reason, many jurisdictions, including Thailand, the European Union, Australia and New Zealand, Canada, and Singapore, require a premarket safety assessment for novel food ingredients before they can be placed on the market. The objective of this assessment is to ensure that each ingredient is safe for its intended use and level of consumption, does not present toxicological, allergenic, microbiological, or nutritional concerns, and will not mislead consumers. Scientific authorities typically evaluate the ingredient’s identity, manufacturing process, composition, specifications, anticipated dietary exposure, toxicological information, nutritional impact, and history of use before determining whether it can be marketed. Against this background, the Thai Food and Drug Administration (FDA) recently took an important step toward improving regulatory transparency by publishing, for the first time, a consolidated public list of substances that have successfully completed the Thai FDA’s safety assessment process, including substances determined to be novel foods and those determined not to fall within the novel food category. The list identifies the approved substances, the corresponding manufacturers or importers, approval dates, and the approved conditions of use. Although the publication does not change the existing legal framework governing novel food approvals, it provides businesses with greater visibility into the Thai FDA’s regulatory precedents and the types of substances that have previously been accepted through the safety assessment process. The full announcement is available on the Thai FDA’s website. As the list is now publicly available, it also provides useful insight into the types of substances that have successfully completed the Thai FDA’s safety assessment process.
Read More
July 24, 2026
For businesses in Thailand’s regulated industries, the problem of “too many licenses” is one of the most familiar hurdles to getting a product to market. Take a simple example: importing the materials necessary to sell teriyaki chicken skewers. To legally do this, a business may need approvals from several different agencies—separate permits for the chicken (Department of Livestock Development), the dipping sauce (Thai FDA), the wooden skewers (Department of Forestry), and other ingredients, each under a different authority. This kind of overlap is often cited to argue for a “regulatory guillotine”—a systematic review to cut outdated or duplicative rules that slow investment and business activity. The Facilitation of Licensing and Public Service Consideration Act B.E. 2569 (2026) (Licensing Facilitation Act 2026) is Thailand’s most significant response yet to that concern. This article looks at the Facilitation Act 2026 through a life sciences and regulatory affairs lens—what it may mean for the manufacturers, importers, and distributors of food, drugs, medical devices, cosmetics, and similar products who routinely deal with several regulators to bring a single product to market. The Super License: One Approval Standing in for Many The reform with the clearest potential for regulated-product businesses is the law’s “super license” mechanism, referred to as a “main license” in the statute. Once a business obtains the main license for a regulated activity, it is automatically deemed to hold all related sublicenses issued by other agencies for that same activity, provided the activity has been designated as eligible in the Government Gazette. The Licensing Facilitation Act 2026 also creates a central application center, allowing applicants to submit a single application and pay all relevant fees at one point of contact, with the center routing the application to each agency through a shared information system. The potential benefits of this for businesses
Read More
July 13, 2026
Indonesia’s Halal Product Assurance Agency (BPJPH) has issued new regulations establishing clearer procedures for imposing administrative sanctions on businesses that violate halal product assurance requirements. BPJPH Regulation No. 2 of 2026 on the Imposition of Administrative Sanctions for Violations of Halal Product Assurance Implementation, issued on June 5, 2026, strengthens Indonesia’s halal compliance framework, as mandated under Law No. 33 of 2014 on Halal Product Assurance and Government Regulation No. 42 of 2024 on the Implementation of Halal Product Assurance. BPJPH Regulation No. 2/2026 also supports the upcoming mandatory halal compliance deadline of October 17, 2026, which will apply to a broad range of products and services, including imported food and beverages, slaughtering products and services, natural and quasi-drugs, health supplements, cosmetics, chemical and genetically engineered products, clothing and accessories, household goods, prayer equipment, stationery, and class A medical devices. Scope BPJPH is authorized to impose administrative sanctions for violations of halal product assurance requirements committed by businesses, halal inspection agencies (LPH), halal auditors, halal product process companion institutions (lembaga pendamping PPH), and halal product process companions (pendamping PPH). The head of BPJPH has authority to determine, cancel, or amend the imposition of administrative sanctions, including upon receipt of objections. This authority covers revocation of Halal Certificates (including foreign halal certificate registration numbers), withdrawal of goods from circulation, freezing of LPH operations, freezing of halal product process companion institutions, revocation of PPH companion institution registration numbers, revocation of halal auditor registration numbers, and revocation of LPH accreditation status. Administrative Sanctions Businesses may be subject to any of the following administrative sanctions: Written warning; Administrative fine; Revocation of the halal certificate, including revocation of foreign halal certificate registration numbers; and Withdrawal of goods from circulation. The regulation sets out the types of violations that may trigger these sanctions, with each
Read More
July 1, 2026
Obtaining marketing authorization is a fundamental requirement for bringing pharmaceutical products to the Thai market. Companies must navigate the Thai Food and Drug Administration’s registration procedures while also complying with post-approval pharmacovigilance obligations, licensing requirements for manufacturing and importation, data protection rules, and other regulatory requirements. This guide provides an overview of Thailand’s regulatory framework for pharmaceutical marketing authorization, including available registration pathways, review timelines, application fees, postmarketing surveillance obligations, licensing requirements, exemptions, data exclusivity, freedom of information, and parallel import considerations. It is intended as a practical reference for pharmaceutical companies, regulatory affairs professionals, and others involved in bringing medicinal products to the Thai market. Download the guide below for a concise overview of the current requirements and procedures governing pharmaceutical marketing authorization in Thailand.
Read More