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

July 4, 2018

Vietnam: Is a VIPRI Opinion the Secret to Enforcement Success?

Subscribe to Updates
Managing Intellectual Property

When pursuing an IP enforcement case in Vietnam, rightsholders will often be advised by counsel of the need to obtain a “VIPRI opinion” as a first step. VIPRI (Vietnam Intellectual Property Research Institute), a quasi-governmental organization, is the only agency in Vietnam authorized to provide expert opinions (statutorily known as “assessment conclusions”) on IP infringement.

A Useful Enforcement Aid

Rightsholders in an infringement action may petition VIPRI to issue an official but non-binding opinion on whether an IP right (patent, industrial design, or trademark) is infringed. A favorable VIPRI opinion, finding that a product or service infringes an IP right, can then be submitted to an enforcement agency, such as the Inspectorate of the Ministry of Science and Technology, the Market Surveillance Department, or customs. Then, based on the non-binding opinion, the enforcement agency can consider whether to proceed with enforcing the IP rights of the complainant, such as by proceeding with an administrative raid and issuance of sanctions. Courts can also rule on IP cases, and a VIPRI opinion can be very persuasive evidence for the court to rule in the rightsholder’s favor.

Enforcement agencies do not require a VIPRI opinion to take action, and in many cases have taken action against infringers without a VIPRI opinion in hand. However, for matters such as trademark infringement where the marks differ slightly, or patent infringement where technical claims must be analyzed, the existence of the VIPRI opinion will help the enforcement agency to feel more comfortable to proceed with the enforcement action, and generally will result in a faster action with more predictable results. VIPRI is recognized as having a strong stable of technical experts, and many of its leaders and examiners are former leaders of Vietnam’s National Office of Intellectual Property (NOIP).

Obtaining a VIPRI Opinion

To seek a VIPRI opinion, the rightsholder must fill in a standard form that requires basic information such as the trademark or patent registration number of the petitioner. Samples or pictures of the infringing product may be submitted with the form. Additionally, a mini-brief is often filed wherein the petitioner can explain any nuances of the case, or provide more detailed analysis, such as by submitting a claim chart and infringement analysis in a patent infringement case.

Information on the well-known character or wide use and recognition in Vietnam of a trademark or design can be presented to support a VIPRI petition and may be persuasive. However, VIPRI will not opine on the well-known status of a trademark and cannot declare a trademark to be well-known – only the NOIP and the enforcement bodies will issue opinions on well-known status.

Generally, VIPRI opinions are issued within two to four weeks after the petition is filed. The longer end of this range typically arises in complex patent petitions, where technical claims must be analyzed. For very straightforward trademark infringement cases, a VIPRI opinion can sometimes be obtained in only a week.

Tips and Best Practices

In some cases, both the rightsholder and the alleged infringer could petition VIPRI, one seeking to prove infringement, one seeking to prove non-infringement. If a second petition is filed for the same case, VIPRI will generally follow the opinion it issued in relation to the first petition. Thus, it is advantageous to arrive first at VIPRI.

If multiple rights are being infringed in a matter, for example, if a product infringes both a word mark and a logo that are separately registered, it is advisable to seek a separate VIPRI opinion on each IP right. This is to safeguard against the situation in which a favorable opinion and an unfavorable opinion are contained in the same document, and when disclosing the favorable opinion, the unfavorable one is also necessarily disclosed to the infringer and perhaps other parties. Generally, there is no duty to disclose a VIPRI opinion. Thus, any separate negative opinion can be filed in a drawer, and not disclosed. The practitioner may then just use the favorable decision when submitting the case to the enforcement authorities.

Naturally, care should be taken in this case, as if such undisclosed opinion is later revealed in the course of litigation, it may cause the practitioner to lose credibility with the arbiter. Such opinion could be discovered if the alleged infringer were to later file a petition for an opinion on non-infringement, as mentioned above, in which case VIPRI would note that it had already ruled on the matter.

Overcoming an Unfavorable VIPRI Opinion

Many rightsholders may tend to give up on an infringement action if they are dealt an unfavorable VIPRI opinion on infringement. However, victory can be seized from the jaws of defeat in this situation. The rightsholder still has several options to consider, including not disclosing the opinion to the enforcement agency, seeking a separate professional opinion from the NOIP, or petitioning VIPRI to reverse its opinion. Though reversals are very rare, they have been granted on a few occasions, based on the submission of more persuasive evidence and particularly well-crafted arguments.

Download Full Article
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