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​ 

November 4, 2024
On September 30, 2024, Vietnam’s Ministry of Science and Technology (MOST) issued Circular No. 06/2024/TT-BKHCN (“Circular 06”), amending and supplementing certain articles of Circular No. 11/2015/TT-BKHCN dated 26 June 2015. These two circulars are the primary guidance on Decree No. 99/2013/ND-CP and Decree No. 46/2024/ND-CP on administrative sanctions in industrial property. Circular 06, which will come into force on November 15, 2024, will improve the alignment between the recently amended IP Law and its subordinate legal instruments. Some of the notable amendments of Circular 06 are set out below. Clarification of Additional Sanctions: Circular 06 clarifies the application of the additional sanction of “full or partial suspension of production, trading, or service activities for 1 to 3 months”, which was recently amended in Decree No. 46/2024/ND-CP. It specifies that only activities directly related to the violating goods or services will be partially suspended. Preventive Measures for Domain Name Disputes: Circular 06 specifies the required documents for brand owners to request the preventive security measure of placing a temporary hold on the registration of domain names during enforcement action against cybersquatters. The introduction of this regime under Circular 06 is expected to enhance cooperation between the Vietnam Internet Network Information Center, domain name registrars, and enforcement authorities to place the temporary hold on infringing domain names. Unfair Competition Relating to Domain Names: Circular 06 outlines specific requirements to prove unfair competition involving the possession and use of Vietnamese domain names that are identical or confusingly similar to another person’s registered trademark, trade name, or geographical indication. However, the regime established by Circular 06 does not fully align with the Uniform Domain Name Dispute Resolution Policy (UDRP) mechanism, a standard procedure for the settlement of domain name disputes that Vietnam is obligated to adhere to under the Comprehensive and Progressive Agreement
Read More
November 1, 2024
Tilleke & Gibbins has contributed the Thailand chapter to Franchise 2025 from the International Comparative Legal Guides (ICLG) series published by Global Legal Group. This comprehensive guide provides detailed analysis of franchise laws and regulations across multiple jurisdictions worldwide. Each chapter of the guide follows a Q&A format, organized into key sections covering critical aspects of franchise law and operations, including: Relevant legislation and rules governing franchise transactions Business organization options for franchised operations Competition law considerations Protection of intellectual property and brands Liability issues and risk mitigation Governing law and dispute resolution Real estate matters Online trading regulations Termination requirements Joint employer risks and vicarious liability Currency controls and taxation Commercial agency considerations Good faith obligations and fair dealing requirements Ongoing relationship management Franchise renewal processes Franchise migration procedures Electronic signatures and document retention The Thailand chapter, authored by Alan Adcock and Kasama Sriwatanakul, examines these topics in detail, with particular attention to recent developments like the Trade Competition Commission’s Franchising Guidelines which introduced new disclosure requirements and protections for franchisees. The complete Thailand chapter is available as a PDF below. The Thailand chapter—and the full Franchise 2025 guide—are also freely available on the ICLG website.
Read More
October 21, 2024
Thailand’s Central Intellectual Property and International Trade (IP&IT) Court has delivered a favorable ruling for Sumitomo Rubber Industries, Ltd., a major player in the tire manufacturing industry, regarding the registration of its motorcycle tire design patent. In this case, Tilleke & Gibbins represented Sumitomo in successfully advocating for recognition of the unique design elements in the company’s motorcycle tire products. Case Overview The case revolved around Sumitomo’s two design patent applications for motorcycle tire designs, which were initially rejected by the Department of Intellectual Property (DIP) on the grounds that they were similar to prior art. Based on an examination of the design elements, primarily focusing on the tire tread patterns, the DIP’s Patent Board had concluded that Sumitomo’s designs were not sufficiently unique to warrant patent protection, as the tread patterns of the new designs were deemed too similar to one found in prior art for tire products. In response, Tilleke & Gibbins filed a complaint with the IP&IT Court on behalf of Sumitomo, seeking a revocation of the Patent Board’s decision and requesting that the court compel the DIP, as the defendant, to proceed with the registration of Sumitomo’s design patents. The complaint emphasized that the designs were novel and distinct, warranting patent protection under Thai law. Legal Strategy The firm’s legal argument focused on the interpretation of Thai patent law, particularly regarding the protection of a product’s external appearance, and emphasized that the determination of a design’s novelty must consider the product’s overall appearance rather than isolating individual features. This approach is consistent with international guidelines on design patents, which require the evaluation of novelty and distinctiveness based on how an informed user would perceive the design as a whole. While Sumitomo’s tire tread patterns may share some superficial similarities to existing designs, the overall impression
Read More
October 20, 2024
The annual statistics issued by the Intellectual Property Office of Vietnam (“IP Office”) in recent years show an increase in the number of IP transactions and applications to establish IP rights, including requests for the recordal of assignment of IP rights. Nevertheless, the numbers of trademark assignment recordals approved by the IP Office has not followed this trend, falling from 1,281 requests approved in 2022 to 1,120 requests approved in 2023. This decrease may be due to the IP Office’s overly strict viewpoint in approving trademark assignments, including its rejection of assignment recordal on the ground of conflict with the assignor’s trade name. IP Office’s practice on assignment recordal Vietnam’s IP Law restricts the assignment of trademarks in several cases, as set out in Article 139.4 that “the assignment of the rights to marks must not cause confusion as to properties or origins of goods or services bearing such marks.” Thus, when an assigned mark is identical to the dominant element of the assignor’s company name, the IP Office will view that the assignee’s use of the mark will result in confusion with the assignor’s trade name, and then instantly reject the assignment request. In this case, the IP Office will only accept the assignment if the IP holder can submit documents issued by relevant authorities proving at least one of the following conditions: The assignor has assigned all business premises and operations under its name to the assignee; The assignor has removed business lines relating to the goods/services bearing the trademarks and such removal is recorded in the Enterprise Registration Certificate; The assignor has been dissolved or does not exist after signing the agreement; The assignor has changed its name after signing the agreement so that it does not contain any element identical or similar to the assigned
Read More