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

March 29, 2023

Vietnam Issues Interim Protocols for Handling Applications Under Amended IP Law

Subscribe to Updates

Vietnam’s amended Law on Intellectual Property of 2022 (“Amended IP Law”) took effect on January 1, 2023, with the exception of a few provisions. However, subordinate legal documents (bylaws) providing necessary details and guidance on the new law still have not been issued, leaving some aspects of the law’s implementation in a state of limbo. This has caused a particular challenge for applications for establishing industrial property rights that were filed before January 1, 2023, but remain pending at the Intellectual Property Office of Vietnam (“IP Office”).

While waiting for the official bylaws to be promulgated, the IP Office has issued some internal protocols for handling applications in this interim period.

Partial Grant of Protection Titles

The Amended IP Law mentions, for the first time, the possibility of partial granting of protection titles for industrial property objects. Under the amended Article 118, the IP Office can issue a notice of its intention to grant partial protection to the allowable parts of a patent/design/trademark application. However, as an interim protocol, the intention to partially grant protection has been temporarily put on hold until further guidance is issued.

Security Control on Patents

For patent applications based on Vietnamese inventions, if there are any corresponding patent applications filed overseas, the IP Office will suspend the examination until the official new bylaws on security control are provided.

Applications for Designs which Are Not Visible During Use

The IP Office imposes a specific mechanism on design applications filed from August 1, 2020, until January 1, 2023, in which the designs are not visible during the exploitation of the utility of complex products. Accordingly, even if a notice of intention to grant was issued but there was no decision on granting by January 1, 2023, the IP Office will issue a new notice on the intended rejection, indicating that the design will be rejected because the design is not visible for the applicant’s response. This means that the prosecution will be prolonged, or even have a negative result.

Suspension of Trademark Applications

Upon the applicant’s request, the IP Office will suspend the substantive examination procedures for trademark applications until cancellation or invalidation actions against cited marks have been completed.

Registrability of Marks Provisionally Refused Based on Expired Marks

The Amended IP Law, under Article 74.2(h), reduced the time an expired mark can be used to block the registration of a later-filed trademark from five years to three years, presenting an interesting issue for applications that were already in the examination process when the Amended IP Law took effect. To address this situation, the IP Office has introduced the following interim protocol:

For applications filed prior to January 1, 2023, for which a decision on refusal has not yet been issued, if the IP Office issued a notification of substantive examination results citing only marks expired for more than three years to provisionally refuse the applicant’s mark, it will issue a replacement notification on the intention to protect the applicant’s mark if (i) the applicant failed to file a response to the intended refusal before the three-month deadline or (ii) the three-month deadline has not yet passed and the applicant has not filed a response.

If the notification of substantive examination results cited marks expired for more than three years along with other grounds to provisionally refuse the applicant’s mark, the IP Office will issue a refusal decision if no response was filed within the three-month deadline. If a response was filed, the IP Office will review the response to issue a decision on settlement of the case in accordance with the Amended IP Law and the currently available bylaws. In this case, prior marks expired for more than three years will be removed when the IP Office assesses the registrability of the applicant’s mark.

For other provisional refusals on grounds of Article 74.2(h) of the Amended IP Law, when prior marks expired for less than three years are cited (with or without other refusal grounds), the IP Office will continue to review and settle the cases in accordance with the Amended IP Law and the currently available bylaws.

For Applications Filed After January 1, 2023

For applications for establishing industrial property rights filed after January 1, 2023, but before the decree guiding the implementation of the Amended IP Law is promulgated, the protocol is to handle the examinations in accordance with the currently available decrees and circulars in the IP field, which were written to guide the previous version of the law. However, if any provisions in these decrees and circulars are contrary to the provisions of the Amended IP Law, then the provisions of the Amended IP Law will still be applied.

Related Professionals

Practices

Intellectual Property

Location

RELATED INSIGHTS​ 

September 4, 2025
On June 6, 2025, the Superior People’s Court in Hanoi overturned a non-use cancellation decision by the Intellectual Property Office of Vietnam, a rare and impactful occurrence. In a ruling that may help clarify the enforcement of Vietnam’s IP Law, the court held that valid trademark use can be established through commercial arrangements where the brand owner maintains actual control over the use of the mark, and is not confined to relationships governed by a so-called “formal license agreement. Background: Cross-Border Use, Local Challenge A Singapore company owns a well-known brand of consumer products that has gained recognition across Southeast Asia. In recent years, the brand has been targeted by several unauthorized trademark filings in Vietnam. In one such instance, a local Vietnamese trading company—previously linked to the production and export of counterfeit goods to neighboring countries—filed a non-use cancellation against the Singapore company’s mark and sought to register it under its own name. If the cancellation had been upheld, it would have enabled a complete hijacking of the brand. The IP holder operates in Vietnam through a structured cross-border supply chain. Under an agreement between two related foreign entities, one of which managed regional operations, production orders were placed through a designated Vietnamese company. While the Vietnamese manufacturer was not a party to the agreement, its role in using the mark was recognized and governed by internal and commercial documentation. The Vietnamese manufacturer lawfully obtained the necessary permits, regulatory approvals, and customs clearances for producing the goods in Vietnam. These activities were supported by banking records and internal communications, evidencing active, continuous use of the mark in Vietnam. However, the IP Office concluded that this use did not meet the statutory criteria because the Vietnamese manufacturer did not have a direct license agreement with the brand owner, as
Read More
August 25, 2025
Indonesia’s current regulations on franchises, as stipulated under Government Regulation No. 35/2024 on Franchising and its implementing regulation, Ministry of Trade (MOT) Regulation No. 71/2019 regarding Implementation of Franchising, highlight fundamental changes in franchise registration. These changes have introduced additional complexities and challenges in the franchise registration procedure, making it more difficult for franchise owners to navigate the process. New procedure Franchise applications are still submitted through the Online Single Submission (OSS) portal of the Capital Investment Coordinating Board (BKPM). However, the new procedure requires each applicant, including foreign franchisors, to have an OSS account and a business registration number (NIB) issued by BKPM. An application for franchise registration must be submitted under the applicant’s own account—submissions can no longer be made through the account of a consultant. Once a franchise application is submitted, the authority will distribute the submission to the MOT—the authorized ministry for franchise registration. Any notification or decision upon the registration made by the MOT will be available in the OSS system. Applicants should regularly monitor the status of the franchise application because no notifications will be sent to applicants to alert them of any deficiency. Here is the summary of the new procedure for franchisors: Notable Requirements The disclosure document, or prospectus, is the key focus for the MOT in examining a franchise registration for a franchisor. This document is subject to thorough scrutiny by the MOT to ensure that all mandatory information meets the requirements set in the franchise regulations. The current regulations specifically require that the mandatory clause “business system” in the prospectus cover operational standards and procedures, which should include human resource management, administration, operational management, standard operating methods, business location selection, business premises design, employee requirements, and marketing strategies. Other clauses that are equally important to pay attention to are:
Read More
August 21, 2025
Although the “passing off” principle has sometimes faced criticism for potentially broadening trademark protection—particularly in cases involving unregistered or unconventional marks like shapes, scents, or sounds—it serves an essential purpose. It safeguards the rights of business owners and shields consumers from deception, ensuring fair competition and reflecting the realities of modern commerce. What is passing off, and why is registrability not required? The passing-off principle is a legal concept rooted in English law, aimed at preventing a person from falsely representing or using a mark similar to another’s in a way that causes consumers to mistakenly believe the goods or services come from the same source. Under Thai law, the passing-off principle is provided under Section 46 of the Thai Trademark Act, which states: No person shall be entitled to bring legal proceedings to prevent or to recover damages for the infringement of an unregistered trademark. The provisions of this Section shall not affect the right of the owner of an unregistered trademark to bring legal proceedings against any person for passing off goods as those of the owner of the trademark. The passing-off principle can be interpreted as a practical legal concept. It does not require proof that the mark is registrable or meets the registrability criteria under trademark law. It is sufficient to show that the mark has established goodwill and that the other party’s use of a similar mark is likely to confuse consumers, making it a straightforward and effective tool for protecting brand assets. Requiring a claimant to prove that an unregistered mark could have been registered would undermine the very function of passing off. The doctrine was conceived precisely to fill the gaps left by the registration system. Imposing registrability criteria would nullify its function and leave many commercially valuable identifiers unprotected. If the
Read More
August 15, 2025
Indonesia’s Directorate General of Intellectual Property (DGIP) has introduced a temporary feature in its online filing system to accommodate the submission of annual patent working statements. The requirement to submit these annual working statements was introduced under the amended Patent Law enacted on October 28, 2024, but the implementing regulation has still not been issued. Annual Working Statements Article 20A of the amended Patent Law requires all patentees to submit an annual statement regarding the implementation of their patents in Indonesia. This obligation applies to all active patents, regardless of when they were granted. The annual working statement declares the status of implementation of the patented invention within Indonesia. Acceptable forms of implementation include: Manufacturing the patented product (whether commercialized or not) Utilizing the patented process (whether commercialized or not) Importation Licensing If the patent has not yet been implemented in Indonesia, the DGIP provides an option to indicate: “The mentioned registered patent has not been implemented in Indonesia.” The statement must be made using the official template provided by the DGIP through the online filing system. Submission The working statement must be submitted annually no later than December 31 of each calendar year. No supporting documents are needed for the submission apart from the signed form itself. A color scanned copy will suffice; the original document is not required. There is currently no official fee for submitting the working statement. While the submission process may eventually align with annuity fee payments, the current process remains separate due to the pending implementing regulation. The submission process may be subject to change upon issuance of the implementing regulation, which is under discussion and expected in the coming months. In the interim, the DGIP accepts submissions of overdue working statements, allowing patentees to fulfill their obligations retroactively. This flexibility is expected
Read More