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​ 

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
June 10, 2026
For multinational franchisors operating in Thailand, a key risk after franchise termination is that former outlets may continue operating in ways that could easily mislead consumers into believing they remain within the authorized network. To justify such operations, former franchisees often argue that the termination was invalid or ineffective. As a result, these cases are often treated as contractual disputes, making it difficult for franchisors to obtain injunctive relief before a final judgment confirms that the termination was lawful. Franchisors face significant commercial and reputational harm during lengthy proceedings, including consumer confusion, disruption to franchise restructuring, and damage to brand reputation and customer trust. In an encouraging development, the Thai court in a 2025 case responded to the problem of unauthorized post-termination franchise operations by granting interim relief, recognizing broader brand and consumer harm, and awarding substantial damages, highlighting a successful litigation strategy of framing the dispute not merely as a contractual termination issue but as trademark infringement causing ongoing commercial injury. The Subway Case From December 2024 to mid-2025, an unauthorized “Subway®” franchise operation in Thailand attracted substantial public and media attention. Reports and online discussions about unauthorized Subway® stores circulated widely after complaints arose about food quality and customer experience at certain outlets that were allegedly operating after their franchise rights had expired. Because these stores continued to use Subway® trademarks, trade dress, and overall commercial appearance, many consumers were unable to distinguish them from authorized operations, resulting in reputational risks and customer confusion that affected the franchisor’s brand and franchise system in Thailand. Subway treated this matter with the utmost seriousness and moved promptly to protect its brand, franchise system, and customers. It filed a civil action with the IP&IT Court seeking a permanent injunction and damages. During the proceedings, the court granted a preliminary injunction
Read More
May 22, 2026
Intellectual property specialists from Tilleke & Gibbins in Vietnam have contributed an updated Intellectual Property Transactions in Vietnam overview for Thomson Reuters Practical Law, an online publication that provides comprehensive legal guides for jurisdictions worldwide. The Vietnam overview was authored by Linh Thi Mai Nguyen, Thanh Phuong Vu, Chi Lan Dang, Son Thai Hoang, and Duc Anh Tran. The chapter provides a high-level examination of key aspects of IP transactions law in Vietnam, including IP assignment and licensing, research and development collaborations, IP in mergers and acquisitions (M&A), lending and taking security over intellectual property rights, settlement agreements, employee- and consultant-created IP, competition law, taxation, and non-tariff trade barriers. Key topics covered in the chapter include: IP assignment: Basis and formalities for assignments of patents, utility models, trade marks, copyright, design rights, trade secrets, confidential information, and domain names in Vietnam. IP licensing: Scope, formalities, and recordal requirements for licensing patents, trade marks, copyright, design rights, and trade secrets. Research and development collaborations: Treatment of improvements, derivatives, and joint ownership of IP, including exploitation and enforcement issues. IP aspects of M&A and security: Due diligence, warranties, transfer formalities, and taking security over intellectual property rights. Practical Law, a legal reference resource from Thomson Reuters, publishes a range of guides for hundreds of jurisdictions and practice areas. The Intellectual Property Transactions Global Guide is a valuable resource for legal practitioners seeking comparative insight into transactional IP issues across multiple jurisdictions. To view the latest version of the Intellectual Property Transactions in Vietnam overview, please visit the Practical Law website and enroll in the free Practical Law trial to gain full access.
Read More
May 13, 2026
Laos has significantly broadened its industrial property administrative review framework, most notably by extending it to cover copyright and related rights for the first time. Decision No. 0306/IC on the Administrative Resolution of Disputes Concerning Industrial Property Registration, New Plant Variety Registration, and Copyright and Related Rights Recordation took effect on April 24, 2026, replacing the previous rules from 2023, which had covered only industrial property and new plant variety matters. Decision No. 0306/IC governs how Laos’ Department of Intellectual Property (DIP) and provincial offices handle formal challenges to industrial property registrations and applications. The proceedings covered include oppositions to pending applications, appeals of refused applications, requests for cancellation of existing registrations, and—newly—disputes concerning the recordation and interpretation of copyright and related rights. These administrative proceedings within the DIP are heard by a government-appointed Administrative Dispute Resolution Committee, which functions similarly to the opposition and review boards found in other jurisdictions. Key Changes Decision No. 0306/IC covers four categories of administrative proceedings: Oppositions: Third-party challenges to a pending industrial property application before it is granted. Refusal appeals: Challenges to the DIP’s decision to refuse their application. Cancellation or deletion requests: Applications to invalidate an existing registered right on the grounds that it should not have been granted. Copyright and related rights disputes: Challenges to or interpretations of copyright and related rights recordations, including determinations of whether a work qualifies for copyright protection under Lao law. The most significant development is the committee’s new jurisdiction over copyright matters. The committee is now empowered to resolve disputes concerning copyright and related rights recordation—this includes the authority to determine whether a work qualifies for copyright protection and to interpret the scope of an existing recordation. Parties who believe a competitor has improperly recorded copyright over a work, or who wish to contest
Read More