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​ 

July 27, 2026
In March 2025, Thailand’s Central Intellectual Property and International Trade Court (IP&IT Court) issued a landmark judgment in favor of Luckin Coffee, China’s leading retail coffee chain. The judgment marked a significant turnaround following earlier trademark litigation involving Luckin Coffee from 2021 to 2023 that had generated widespread public attention and raised questions about the protection available to legitimate foreign brand owners in Thailand. In a significant subsequent development, Thailand’s Court of Appeal for Specialized Cases has now affirmed the IP&IT Court’s judgment in its entirety. The appellate decision brings clarity to one of Thailand’s most closely watched trademark disputes. Significantly, this is the first case in Thailand to formally recognize the trademark squatting principle. The Court of Appeal confirmed that Luckin Coffee has a better right to the disputed mark and ordered cancellation of the defendants’ trademark registration—a key application of the “better right” doctrine. The court also upheld the substantial damages awarded at first instance, providing important guidance on assessing harm from systematic trademark squatting. Award-Winning Judgment Affirmed in Its Entirety The significance of the first-instance judgment extended beyond the outcome for Luckin Coffee. The IP&IT Court judgment was subsequently recognized in the IP&IT Court’s Distinguished Judgment Awards in 2025, reflecting the complexity, novelty, and legal significance of the issues considered in the case. The defendants nevertheless appealed the judgment, challenging several key aspects of the IP&IT Court’s decision. Luckin Coffee continued to entrust Tilleke & Gibbins as their sole attorney to pursue the case at the appellate level. After considering the defendants’ appeal and Luckin Coffee’s submissions in response, the Court of Appeal affirmed the first-instance judgment in its entirety. The judgment was announced on July 8, 2026. Better Right to the Marks The Court of Appeal confirmed Luckin Coffee’s superior rights. The orders include cancellation
Read More
July 24, 2026
As food innovation continues to accelerate, manufacturers are increasingly introducing ingredients derived from new sources, produced using novel technologies, or lacking a significant history of human consumption. While these innovations create new opportunities for the food industry, they also raise important questions regarding consumer safety. For this reason, many jurisdictions, including Thailand, the European Union, Australia and New Zealand, Canada, and Singapore, require a premarket safety assessment for novel food ingredients before they can be placed on the market. The objective of this assessment is to ensure that each ingredient is safe for its intended use and level of consumption, does not present toxicological, allergenic, microbiological, or nutritional concerns, and will not mislead consumers. Scientific authorities typically evaluate the ingredient’s identity, manufacturing process, composition, specifications, anticipated dietary exposure, toxicological information, nutritional impact, and history of use before determining whether it can be marketed. Against this background, the Thai Food and Drug Administration (FDA) recently took an important step toward improving regulatory transparency by publishing, for the first time, a consolidated public list of substances that have successfully completed the Thai FDA’s safety assessment process, including substances determined to be novel foods and those determined not to fall within the novel food category. The list identifies the approved substances, the corresponding manufacturers or importers, approval dates, and the approved conditions of use. Although the publication does not change the existing legal framework governing novel food approvals, it provides businesses with greater visibility into the Thai FDA’s regulatory precedents and the types of substances that have previously been accepted through the safety assessment process. The full announcement is available on the Thai FDA’s website. As the list is now publicly available, it also provides useful insight into the types of substances that have successfully completed the Thai FDA’s safety assessment process.
Read More
July 24, 2026
Indonesia has updated its fee framework for intellectual property (IP)-related government services, with implications for IP owners, licensees, lenders, digital platforms, and businesses operating in the country. Government Regulation No. 30 of 2026 on Types and Tariffs of Non-Tax State Revenue Applicable to the Ministry of Law (GR 30/2026) was promulgated on July 2, 2026, and will take effect on August 1, 2026. Key Takeaways GR 30/2026, which replaces the relevant IP service fees under Government Regulation No. 45 of 2024, reorganizes the fee schedule into separate categories for copyright, industrial designs, patents, layout designs of integrated circuits, trade secrets, trademarks, geographical indications, IP enforcement, and other categories. The most commercially relevant changes include a new copyright recordation tariff exemption for songs and music, higher fees for several trademark and geographical indication services, new IP enforcement service fees, and a new fee type for registration of fiduciary security over IP rights objects. In addition, this is the first major update for trademark fees in approximately 10 years. GR 30/2026 is significant not only as a fee update but also as a further indication of Indonesia’s increasing recognition of IP as a financeable commercial asset. By expressly assigning fees to the registration of fiduciary security over IP rights objects, the regulation places IP-backed collateral filings within the Ministry of Law’s administrative service framework. While GR 30/2026 does not create a new secured-transactions regime, this development is relevant for lenders, borrowers, and IP owners structuring financing arrangements secured by trademarks, patents, copyrights, industrial designs, or other registrable IP rights in Indonesia. Copyright: New Fee Exemption for Songs and Music Recordation For copyright, GR 30/2026 creates a fee-exempt category for recordation of works or related-rights products for songs or music, while maintaining a separate category for other works and related-rights products. It
Read More
July 21, 2026
Thailand’s Ministry of Digital Economy and Society (MDES) published a notification establishing an expedited court-ordered takedown mechanism for online content in cases of “urgent necessity.” The notification, which was issued on July 17, 2026, under the Computer Crime Act B.E. 2550 (2007), as amended, took effect the following day. It significantly expands the categories of content subject to rapid government-initiated removal. Content Categories Subject to Takedown The notification defines “urgent necessity” (section 20, paragraph 5, of the Computer Crime Act) as circumstances where any delay in suppressing computer data may impact national security, religion, the monarchy, good morals, social culture, or public order. In this regard, it establishes four broad categories of content: Computer Crime Act offenses. National security offenses. IP and other criminal offenses, where it is contrary to public order or good morals and a competent officer has requested its suppression. Content contrary to public order or good morals, a broad residual category encompassing 14 subcategories approved by the Computer Data Screening Committee. The fourth category is the most expansive. Its 14 subcategories include: Content defaming, mocking, satirizing, or devaluing the monarchy. Online gambling advertising or facilitation. Offering illegal firearms for sale. Offering baraku (hookah) products or e-cigarettes for sale. Offering cannabis inflorescences or processed cannabis products for sale. Advertising or soliciting prostitution. Content inciting violence, hatred, or social division. Unauthorized overseas employment advertising. Offering boiled kratom juice for sale. Online sale or advertising of alcoholic beverages. Content satirizing or degrading Buddhism. Money lending at interest rates exceeding legally prescribed limits. Advertising or disseminating information about surrogacy services. Forgery of documents, cards, or official documents. Enforcement Procedure In cases of urgent necessity, a competent official assigned by the MDES permanent secretary must file a petition with supporting evidence to the court with jurisdiction, requesting an order to
Read More