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

October 3, 2019

Vietnam Joins the Hague Agreement and Prepares to Amend Its IP Law

Subscribe to Updates

On October 1, 2019, Vietnam filed an instrument of accession to join the Hague Agreement Concerning the International Registration of Industrial Designs (Geneva Act of July 2, 1999). The Hague Agreement will officially take effect in Vietnam on January 1, 2020, three months after the filing date of the instrument.

Certain provisions of Vietnam’s Law on Intellectual Property (IP Law) and its guiding legislation will need to be amended or updated to be compatible with the Hague Agreement, as well as other recently joined or signed treaties like the EU-Vietnam Free Trade Agreement (EVFTA). While waiting for these amendments, Vietnam has announced that the provisions of the Hague Agreement will be directly applied for both international design applications designating Vietnam and international design applications originating from Vietnam.

In mid-September the Ministry of Science and Technology (MOST) also posted for public comments a draft proposal for amendment and supplementation of the IP Law, including some provisions that will facilitate applicants of international applications under the Hague Agreement. It is expected that the draft amended IP Law will be finalized and submitted to the National Assembly for approval in 2021.

Among the changes proposed in the most recent draft are the following matters related to patent and design.

PATENT

1. Assessment of novelty

Under current provisions, “an invention shall be considered novel if it is not publicly disclosed by use, by means of a written description, or in any other form inside or outside the country before the filing date of the patent application for invention or before the priority date if the application has a priority right.”

Accordingly, the scope of documents for assessment of novelty does not include a patent application for invention with an earlier filing date but published on or after the filing date of the newer application, because it has not yet been “publicly disclosed.” The draft proposal, following the practice of many other countries, includes this document as a basis for assessment of novelty.

2. Security control procedures

The issue of security control (first filing/foreign filing license) is stipulated in Decree No. 122/2010/ND-CP. The MOST proposes to move this provision into the IP Law and limit security control to technical fields affecting national security and defense.

However, in accordance with the current provisions, to file an application outside of Vietnam, an applicant first has to wait until six months after filing his/her application in Vietnam; if there is no notification from the state authorities regarding national defense and security during that six-month period, the application can be filed abroad. There is no mechanism in the draft proposal for a license to file applications abroad any earlier. In addition, many terms in the current provisions have not been concretized. It is hoped that such issues will be addressed and clarified in the final version of the amended law.

3. Grounds for patent invalidation

Currently, there are only two grounds for invalidation of a patent:

(i) The applicant had no right to file the application, or

(ii) The application did not meet requirements of novelty, inventive step, or industrial applicability.

The MOST proposes supplementing three additional grounds:

(iii) The claim set extends beyond the disclosure in the description as originally filed;

(iv) The specification does not disclose sufficiently to the extent that such invention can be carried out by a person skilled in the art; and

(v) A patent application for invention relating to a genetic resource or traditional knowledge fails to disclose or incorrectly discloses the genetic resource or traditional knowledge in the application.

These additional grounds are common in other countries, though the wording of ground (iii) would be more in line with international standards if it was changed to “the subject-matter of the patent extends beyond the content of the application as originally filed.”

INDUSTRIAL DESIGN

1. Specification of industrial design application

Currently, a specification is a mandatory document for an industrial design application. These specifications have numerous requirements as to their contents, making it difficult for applicants to prepare them and also requiring great efforts from the Intellectual Property Office to issue office actions objecting to specifications that fail to meet the requirements. Meanwhile, these specifications do not have much actual effect in determining the design. It is generally understood that the protection scope of a design is determined by the drawings, and there are still questions about whether a specification is truly relevant to the protection scope. The MOST proposes to amend the law to no longer require a specification to be submitted with a design application.

In addition, the MOST also proposes including a provision allowing applicants to submit a description as a reference. This would make it easier to determine the design, while clearly stating that such description does not serve as a basis for determining the protection scope of the design.

2. Postponement of publication of industrial design application

Sometimes an applicant will wish to postpone the publication of an industrial design application, to avoid the design being copied by a third party before the product is actually put into production. Under current provisions, such postponement is not allowed. The MOST proposes to amend the law to allow the postponement of publication. This will facilitate applicants who file an international application designating Vietnam under the Hague Agreement and wish to postpone its publication.

3. Assessment of novelty and originality for industrial design of component

The EU-Vietnam Free Trade Agreement (EVFTA) signed on June 30, 2019, contains the following provisions on the criteria for assessing the novelty and originality of an industrial design of a component of a complex product:

(i) The component must remain visible during normal use of the product;

(ii) The visible features must meet the requirements of novelty and originality; and

(iii) “Visible” means “seen by user (consumer)” of the product.

As these provisions are not directly specified in the current law of Vietnam, the MOST proposes to include them in the amended law.

POSSIBLE ADDITIONAL AMENDMENTS

Though the draft amended IP Law includes a number of positive advances, some issues remain conspicuously absent, including the following:

Patents for use inventions – As a member of the WTO, Vietnam provides patent protection for pharmaceutical inventions. However, use inventions, such as medical use inventions, are controversially not protected. The MOST admits that the protection of use inventions needs to be considered; however, no proposal to amend the law has yet been raised. If use inventions are not protected, this could check the development of the pharmaceutical sector in Vietnam, especially for Vietnamese companies.

Protection of partial designs – The current provisions require seven basic views to be filed for a design application, and partial designs (designs of parts of a product which can only be separated from the product by breaking the product) are not patentable. Accordingly, design protection in Vietnam is relatively narrow. The protection of partial designs would make Vietnamese law more compatible with the Hague Agreement.

It is hoped that, following the public comments, additional provisions addressing these issues and others will be included in the official proposal submitted to the government.

Related Professionals

Practices

Intellectual Property

Location

RELATED INSIGHTS​ 

August 6, 2026
Introduction: A Trademark Paradox in Sustainable Packaging Walk into any Thai supermarket, and the label-free water bottle is no longer a novelty. Thailand’s packaging market, valued at approximately USD 15.68 billion in 2025, is shifting toward minimalist, plastic-light designs as ESG pressures reshape how brands present their products. The country generated roughly 5.68 million tons of plastic waste in 2021, with a recycling rate of only 19 percent, and regulators are now considering rules that would allow label-free bottled water relying on embossing, laser printing, or QR codes instead of wrap-around labels. As packaging itself becomes the brand identifier, a paradox emerges: designs built to say the least often struggle hardest for protection under Thai intellectual property law. The Trademark Barrier: When Shape Is Not Enough Section 7, paragraph 2(10) of the Thai Trademark Act deems a shape distinctive only if it is not the natural form of the goods, is not necessary to achieve a technical result, and does not add value to the goods. The Department of Intellectual Property’s 2022 examination guidelines apply this test conservatively, as the following examples illustrate. A plain water bottle relying on subtle contours to signal its brand is typically read as just another bottle, not a source identifier. Acquired distinctiveness offers a theoretical escape route, but it demands extensive evidence of sales, advertising, and consumer recognition—an especially heavy burden for new entrants whose minimalist packaging has not yet achieved market prominence. The result is a structural bias against precisely the design innovation that sustainability goals are meant to encourage. Design Patents: A Partial, Imperfect Substitute Design patent protection, covering a product’s shape, configuration, or ornamentation, appears to offer an alternative route. In practice, it is constrained by the same forces driving the minimalist trend. Because many brands converge on similar solutions—clear
Read More
August 4, 2026
Intellectual property (IP) protection sometimes hinges on fame and recognition. However, this alone will not always be sufficient to overcome an IP dispute when it involves contractual obligations or registered rights. Below are five cases from around the world that tackle some of the basic issues in IP registration, ownership, commercialization, and enforcement. 1. USA: Taylor Swift Trademark Application Refused Taylor Swift recently filed a trademark application to register “The Life of a Showgirl,” which is the title of her 12th studio album. When examining a trademark application, the examiner considers various factors before deciding whether it should be registered. One of these factors is whether there is a likelihood of confusion (i.e., would a regular consumer mistake the origin of the trademark). In Taylor Swift’s case, the US Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO) decided that that there would be a risk of confusion. This decision was based on the existing registered trademark, “Confessions of a Showgirl,” owned by Maren Wade, which was registered in 2015. The USPTO refused Taylor Swift’s application based on the shared key distinctive element “of a showgirl,” the lack of sufficient distinguishing terms, the marks being used in overlapping markets (entertainment and performances), and because consumers may assume a common commercial source. Maren Wade then filed a lawsuit in California against Taylor Swift and her affiliated companies, arguing that Taylor Swfit’s branding is confusingly similar in structure, wording, and overall commercial impression to her registered mark. She is also drawing on the USPTO’s refusal of Taylor Swift’s application to support her argument of a likelihood of confusion. A judgment has not yet been reached in this case, but it serves as an important reminder of the importance of satisfying the essential elements required for IP registration. 2. Australia: Katy Perry v. Katie Perry In
Read More
July 27, 2026
Vietnam’s new E-Commerce Law, which took effect on 1 July 2026 along with its implementing Decree No. 248/2026/ND-CP (Decree 248), marks a significant development in the country’s approach to online intellectual property (IP) enforcement, reflecting a clear shift from a reactive model of intermediary liability to one that expects platforms to play a more active role in preventing infringement. From notice-and-takedown to platform responsibility The most significant change introduced by the E-Commerce Law is the transformation of the legal role of e-commerce platforms. The existing safe harbor provisions under the IP Law and the copyright notice-and-takedown regime established by Decree 17/2023/ND-CP (Decree 17) largely required intermediaries to act only after receiving notice of infringement. Once infringing content had been removed, the platform’s legal obligation was generally considered fulfilled. The new legislation adopts a fundamentally different approach. Article 17 of the E-Commerce Law requires intermediary platforms to screen information relating to goods and services before publication in order to prevent listings involving counterfeit or IP-infringing goods, and goods of unknown origin. Rather than relying exclusively on complaints from rights holders, platforms are now expected to implement preventive measures before infringing listings become publicly available. Decree 248 further requires platforms to update keyword filters based on recommendations issued by competent authorities. These filtering mechanisms are intended to prevent prohibited listings from appearing on the platform and represent a further move away from a purely complaint-driven enforcement model. The legislation also introduces Vietnam’s first statutory stay-down obligation. Under the E-Commerce Law and Decree 248, major digital platforms must maintain automated systems capable of reviewing, warning against, and removing unlawful listings while also implementing measures to prevent repeat violations, defined under Decree 248 as conduct that has previously been identified and handled by the platform, but continues to recur. This obligation addresses one
Read More
July 27, 2026
Tilleke & Gibbins’ intellectual property specialists have authored the Thailand chapter of Trade Secrets 2026 from Chambers and Partners. This global guide examines the legal frameworks governing trade secret protection, enforcement, and litigation across jurisdictions worldwide. The Thailand chapter provides a comprehensive overview of the country’s legal regime for protecting confidential business information, covering the legal framework, trade secret misappropriation, litigation procedures, remedies, and dispute resolution. Some topics covered include: Protectable trade secrets Reasonable measures to maintain secrecy Employee confidentiality Trade secret licensing Civil and criminal remedies Litigation procedures and injunctions Damages and other remedies Mediation and arbitration The guide also examines practical issues relating to safeguarding trade secrets, defending against allegations of misappropriation, and managing trade secret disputes in Thailand. Chambers and Partners’ Global Practice Guides provide in-house counsel with authoritative commentary on practical legal issues affecting business, enabling readers to compare legislation and procedures across multiple jurisdictions. The Thailand chapter of Trade Secrets 2026 is available as a PDF through the button below. The full guide can be accessed for free on the Chambers and Partners website.
Read More