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

December 7, 2020

Vietnam IP Office Tightening Requirements for Document Signatories

Subscribe to Updates

On November 23, 2020, the Intellectual Property Office of Vietnam (IP Office) issued Notification No. 13822/TB-SHTT tightening the requirements for signatories of all documents submitted to the IP Office, including powers of attorney (POAs).

In the past, the IP Office has accepted POAs (as well as other documents) signed by any representatives internally authorized by the IP holders. However, under the new notification, the IP Office requires all documents to be signed by a legal representative of the applicant or owner, such as the chairman of the board, president, CEO, general director, etc. If the documents are signed by other signatories, additional evidence proving that the signatories have the capacity to represent the IP owners or applicants is also required. If such evidence is not available then the document must be legalized.

Although the notification does not indicate when this new practice will be applied, an informal check with the IP Office revealed that it is effective immediately for all new cases, including cases that use new POAs/documents and new cases that refer to old POAs which were previously submitted to and accepted by the IP Office. This practice will apply to both Vietnamese and foreign applicants and owners who pursue registration and protection of their IP rights in Vietnam.

It is unclear how this will affect pending cases at the IP Office, and this appears to still be under consideration. In some recent cases, the IP Office has asked the IP agents to confirm in writing that the signatories are eligible to represent the applicants or owners. The IP Office may continue this practice for pending cases in the near future. If so, we can handle the IP Office’s request at our end. If there is any change, we will let you know in a timely manner.

Based on the above circumstances, for new cases, we recommend the following:

  • All documents that will be submitted to the IP Office, including POAs and other documents, should be signed by a legal representative of the company, such as the chairman of the board, president, CEO, general director, etc.
  • If the documents are signed by other signatories, such as a deputy of a senior executive, department head, attorney-in-fact, authorized signatory, proxy, officer, etc., then additional documents proving that the capacity of the signatories to represent the applicants or owners are also required.
  • In our informal discussion with the IP Office, the officers also indicated that instead of additional documents proving the capacity of the signatories, the applicants or owners can have documents that were signed by other signatories notarized by a notary public, and the notary’s certification should indicate that the signatories are authorized to sign the relevant documents. Although this is not mentioned in the notification, the IP Office has accepted such notarized documents in some recent cases. Therefore, in our opinion, this can be an alternative when it is difficult to arrange for the documents mentioned in Items 1 and 2 above.

Please contact us at [email protected] if you have further questions about Notification No. 13822/TB-SHTT and how it affects your IP Office filings going forward.

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