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

February 14, 2019

Vietnam Issues Temporary Rules on Intellectual Property for Transition to CPTPP

Subscribe to Updates

The Comprehensive and Progressive Agreement for Trans-Pacific Partnership (CPTPP) came into effect in Vietnam on January 14, 2019, with some of its provisions on intellectual property taking effect immediately. (Under the Vietnamese legal system, when the provisions of international treaties such as the CPTPP differ from national law, the international provisions will apply.)

Vietnam intends to amend its laws that are incompatible with the CPTPP, including the Law on Intellectual Property (IP Law), to be in line with the international treaty in the near future. In the meantime, however, provisional measures are necessary. Accordingly, the National Office of Intellectual Property (NOIP) issued Notice 1926 dated February 1, 2019, to provide guidance on IP regulations in the transition period.

The provisions in Notice 1926 are mainly in the nature of clarifying and broadening the existing rules in the IP Law and related regulations, though some provide guidance on newly raised issues. Details of these provisions are presented below.

Please click here to see an English translation of the entire notice.

Trademarks

Recordal of trademark license agreements (Article 18.27 of the CPTPP)

Under the IP Law, a license agreement is effective as agreed by the parties but is only effective to a third party if the agreement is recorded with the NOIP. However, under the CPTPP and Notice 1926, from January 14, 2019, license agreements are valid—between the parties and with third parties—without recordal. The exemption from recordal for license agreements applies to trademark licenses only.

Notice 1926 further clarifies that the use of a trademark by a licensee is also deemed use of the trademark by the holder in a proceeding related to the acquisition, maintenance, or enforcement of trademarks, regardless of whether the license agreement was recorded with the NOIP.

Geographical Indications

1. Third-party opposition to geographical indication applications (Article 18.32.1 of the CPTPP)

Under the CPTPP and Notice 1926, opposition to a geographical indication application on the grounds that the geographical indication is “likely to cause confusion” with a protected trademark must be considered (instead of only “will cause confusion,” as under the IP Law), taking into account that a geographical indication is often a preexisting object that is likely to “be confused” rather than “cause confusion” with a trademark.

2. Protection of translation or transliteration of geographical indication (Article 18.32.5 of the CPTPP)

The CPTPP and Notice 1926 stipulate that applications for geographical indications in the form of transliteration/translation will be handled in the same manner as regular geographical indication applications. The current IP Law is silent on this matter.

3. Determination of whether a term is the common name of goods (Article 18.33 of the CPTPP)

Although this issue has been stipulated in the IP Law, the CPTPP and Notice 1926 provide further details on the methods/criteria for determining whether a term is a common name. These can include: (1) sources of information from dictionaries, newspapers, websites, etc., and (2) how products are marketed and used in commerce (import and export tariffs, etc.).

4. Non-protection of an individual component of a multi-component term if that individual component is the common name of the related goods (Article 18.34 of the CPTPP)

Under the CPTPP and Notice 1926, if a geographical indication which is a multi-component term contains a component identified as the common name of goods in Vietnam, then when the protection is approved, the component which is the common name of goods will be excluded from the scope of protection (not separately protected). The current IP law is silent on this matter.

Patents

Grace period applicable to utility patents (Article 18.38 of the CPTPP)

The CPTPP and Notice 1926 provide an extended grace period for public disclosure of 12 months, rather than the 6-month period in the current law. This grace period is counted from the filing date, rather than the priority date, which had been a matter of confusion under the current law. The grace period also applies to both the novelty and inventive step requirements, rather than only the novelty requirement as in the current law, and includes a very broad scope of disclosures.

Scope of Application

The scope of Notice 1926 is limited to citizens of member countries of the WTO and the Paris Convention. However, as there are 177 contracting parties of the Paris Convention and 164 members of the WTO, the scope of application is very broad.

There are still a number of important issues under the CPTPP that Notice 1926 has not yet provided guidance on, such as the registration of sound/scent marks, the bona fide use of descriptive terms, the recognition of well-known trademarks, the registration of a geographical indication as a trademark, etc. The amendment of IP legislation is expected to clarify these issues.

If you have any questions about the impact of the CPTPP on your IP rights, please contact us at [email protected].

Related Professionals

Practices

Intellectual Property

Location

RELATED INSIGHTS​ 

June 24, 2026
Patent enablement requirements are provided under Article 102 of Vietnam’s Law on Intellectual Property (IP Law). In particular, a patent specification must “fully and clearly disclose the nature of the invention to such an extent that, based on the specification, a person having ordinary skill in the relevant art can implement the invention.” In pharmaceutical and biotechnology patents, this requirement is more complicated and subject to more rigorous assessment. The Patent Examination Guidelines (Guidelines) of the Intellectual Property Office of Vietnam (IP Office) were amended in March 2026 to introduce Annexes III and IV for the pharmaceutical and biotechnology sectors, in which Annex III provides detailed guidelines on the assessment of specification requirements. These amendments were made under a project for strengthening capacity in industrial property examination between the Japan International Cooperation Agency (JICA) and the IP Office. Annex III provides detailed instructions on how examiners assess enablement in a pharmaceutical or biotechnology application, and offers examples of acceptable and unacceptable descriptions with regard to the enablement aspect. Enablement Requirements in Pharma and Biotech Patents Article 12.7 of Circular 10/2026/TT-BKHCN (Circular 10) adds to the requirements of Article 102 of the IP Law that the description must demonstrate the novelty, inventive step, and industrial applicability of the technical solution. For pharmaceutical composition subject matters, Article 12.9 of Circular 10 sets out that the description must present the results of clinical trials and/or the pharmacological effects of the claimed pharmaceutical composition, and must include at least the following information: Substance/mixture used. Testing method (system) employed. Information on the test results. Correlation between the pharmacological effects obtained from the tests and the application of the pharmaceutical product in the prevention, diagnosis, and treatment of diseases. The Guidelines note that pharmacological study results should be presented in a quantified manner, and pharmacological
Read More
June 16, 2026
Since the implementation of the Trademark Law 2019 on April 1, 2023, Myanmar has operated under a modern first-to-file trademark system that brings its registration framework closer to international practice. As the new regime continues to develop in practice, applicants are increasingly required to navigate formal examination requirements, substantive objections, and procedural deadlines with greater precision. This article provides a high-level review of the trademark examination process in Myanmar, focusing on the principal stages from initial review to approval, the types of objections commonly raised by the Intellectual Property Department (IPD), and the key considerations for responding effectively. A clear understanding of these issues is essential for applicants seeking to secure registration efficiently and to mitigate avoidable delays or refusals. Examination Process: Key Stages Trademark applications filed with the IPD undergo two stages of review. Formality Examination The IPD first verifies compliance with procedural requirements, including: Correct Nice Classification Clear mark representation Accurate applicant details Clearly defined goods or services Representative details, if the application is filed by a representative Other formality requirements cover translation and transliteration of any non-English or non-Myanmar elements in the mark, color claim details, applicable disclaimers, and payment of official fees. Deficiencies result in an office action requiring correction within 30 days, which may be extended upon request. Registrability Examination The IPD also assesses registrability. A mark may be refused if it: Lacks distinctiveness Is descriptive or generic Misleads the public or violates public order/morality Contains prohibited state symbols Only compliant applications proceed to publication. Responding to Office Actions Applicants must respond within 30 days of notification from the IPD. Depending on the nature of the objection, strategies may include submitting legal arguments for distinctiveness, providing evidence of acquired distinctiveness, filing appropriate disclaimers, clarifying descriptions such as color claims, or amending the listed goods
Read More
June 15, 2026
The surge in AI development has led to a desperate demand for large, high-quality training data. However, real-world data can be expensive to collect, difficult to access, and often subject to strict privacy and regulatory constraints. Synthetic data, which consists of artificially generated records that replicate the statistical properties of real-world data without reproducing specific individuals’ information, provides an appealing solution by generating artificial datasets at scale without relying on identifiable personal information. It combines speed, cost efficiency, and regulatory compliance, making it a sensible alternative for organizations seeking to reduce risks while maintaining data utility. When properly anonymized, synthetic datasets may fall outside the scope of laws such as the EU’s General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR) or Thailand’s Personal Data Protection Act (PDPA), reducing compliance burdens while still supporting high-quality model training. However, relying on synthetic data without rigorous legal due diligence could be a strategic mistake. It replaces one set of known risks (scraping, direct privacy liability) with a new set of complex liabilities. The narrative that synthetic data is a “silver bullet” for privacy and IP compliance is dangerous and could be misleading. While synthetic data addresses data scarcity, it also introduces new legal uncertainties. Legal counsel should anticipate downstream risks arising from compromised data sources. Models trained on unlawfully obtained data may need to be decommissioned, even if their outputs appear lawful. What is synthetic data? Synthetic data refers to artificially generated information created using AI techniques such as deep learning and generative models. Instead of copying real records, it reproduces the statistical patterns and relationships found in the original dataset. Synthetic data generally falls into three categories: Fully synthetic data – Entirely new data points generated from learned patterns. The model studies the structure of the original data and produces records that resemble real-world
Read More
June 10, 2026
In March 2026, the Intellectual Property Office of Vietnam (IP Office) issued a decision refusing a trademark application after considering an opposition based primarily on copyright grounds. The outcome is noteworthy because the foreign brand owner had neither trademark registrations nor applications in Vietnam at the time the opposition was filed, and the IP Office has historically applied a stringent approach to oppositions relying on copyright. The Opposition Maurten is a well-known Swedish sports nutrition brand recognized globally for its innovative hydrogel technology, which is designed to help endurance athletes fuel more effectively without gastrointestinal discomfort. The brand’s distinctive logo is characterized by clean lines and a bold black-and-white color scheme, and has long been associated with the company’s performance products. The brand’s logo is displayed above. An identical mark was filed for registration by a Vietnamese trademark squatter. In 2023, a Vietnamese individual filed an application for registration of an identical mark (Application No. 4-2023-38668), a practice commonly observed in Vietnam as trademark squatting. The brand owner engaged Tilleke & Gibbins to assist with strategy and filing an opposition to the mark. At the time, Maurten had no trademark rights or meaningful use in Vietnam, and global marketing data showed only modest figures without any local presence. Thus, to convince the IP Office to refuse the squatter’s application, instead of relying on trademark rights or use evidence, the opposition strategy centered on the copyright protection of the logo itself, as copyright arises automatically in Vietnam upon creation of the work and does not require registration. (It is worth noting, however, that the IP Office has traditionally been cautious in accepting copyright as a basis for refusing trademark applications.) On September 24, 2024, an opposition was filed on three main grounds: confusing similarity, copyright infringement of the artistic work,
Read More