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

March 30, 2023

Vietnam’s Amended IP Law Changes Requirements for IP Agents

Subscribe to Updates
Managing Intellectual Property

Vietnam’s Law on Intellectual Property was comprehensively amended in 2022 (“2022 IP Law”), and the amended law came into effect (with the exception of a few provisions) on 1 January 2023. Along with amendments of substantive matters, the revised version also touches upon the requirements for providing IP representation (agent) services, at both the organizational and individual level.

Requirements for Organizations

Article 154 of the previous IP Law provided the following conditions for organizations to act as IP representation service organizations:

  1. The organization is a lawfully established and operating law-practicing enterprise, cooperative or organization, or a scientific and technological service organization, except for foreign law-practicing organizations operating in Vietnam.
  2. The organization has the function of providing IP representation services stated in its business registration certificate or operation registration certificate.
  3. The head(s) of the organization or a person(s) authorized by the head(s) of the organization has a certificate for practicing IP representation services.

While the first requirement remains unchanged, the 2022 IP Law has removed the second requirement, and revised the third requirement to be more relaxed. Specifically, the amended provision only requires that there must be at least one individual holding a certificate for practicing IP representation services in each IP representation service organization. (Regarding the second requirement, while it is no longer stated in the IP Law, this does not mean that any organization can practice IP representation services, because this is a conditional business line and only organizations who meet the conditions for providing such services, provided in other legislation, can do business in this field.)

Requirements for Individuals

At the individual level, the law both tightens and loosens the requirements. Under the former law, to be granted a certificate for practicing IP representation services, the individual must:

  1. Be a Vietnamese citizen with full capacity for civil acts;
  2. Reside permanently in Vietnam;
  3. Have a university degree;
  4. Have either directly worked in the field of IP law or conducted examinations for IP applications at national or international IP offices for at least five years, or have completed a training course on IP Law recognized by a state authority;
  5. Not be a civil servant or employee working in a state authority in relation to establishment and enforcement of IP rights; and
  6. Have passed an IP agent examination organized by a relevant authority.

Among the conditions above, the last is the most challenging. It is widely known that it is extremely difficult to pass an IP agent examination in Vietnam, as the pass rate in recent years has typically been lower than 10%. Because of that, through the end of 2022, only 349 individuals had been granted certificates for practicing IP representation services (“IP agents”), and 294 organizations had been permitted to act as IP representation service organizations in Vietnam.

The 2022 IP Law divides IP representation services for individuals into two categories: (i) for inventions, industrial designs or layout designs (“patent agents”); and (ii) for trademarks, geographical indications, trade names, anti-unfair competition and trade secrets (“trademark agents”). The requirements for each category are different.

To become a patent agent, the 2022 IP Law requires that the individual must have a bachelor’s or equivalent degree in natural sciences or engineering (while under the former law, any bachelor’s degree would suffice). The other conditions mentioned above remain unchanged for patent agents. As such, generally, the conditions for patent agent have become more stringent.

The 2022 IP Law maintains the same six conditions for trademark agents as in the old law. However, it has opened another way to become a trademark agent by creating a new set of conditions especially for lawyers. Accordingly, any qualified lawyer who is residing in Vietnam and has completed a training course on IP Law recognized by a state authority could become a trademark agent.

Needless to say, this makes it easier than before for a lawyer to become a trademark agent, as they no longer need to fulfill conditions (iv), and (v). More importantly, condition (vi) – passing an IP agent examination, which is the most difficult condition as mentioned above – has been replaced by a much simpler condition, which is to simply complete a training course on IP law.

Likely Impact of the Changes

When viewing the changes in the requirements for practicing IP representation services at both the organizational level and the individual level, it is now clear that local law firms will benefit the most from such changes. As the law no longer requires the IP agent (or patent/trademark agent) to be the head or authorized by the head of the firm, it will be very easy for a law firm to appoint any of its lawyers to attend a course on IP law (which often can be completed in 6 months and costs less than USD 1,000), and then that lawyer will become a trademark agent, and that law firm will become an IP representation service organization.

Taking into account that there are more than 16,000 lawyers and 6,000 law firms in Vietnam, it is expected that the number of trademark agents and IP representation service organizations will be on the rise in the time to come.

This article first appeared in Managing Intellectual Property.

Related Professionals

Practices

Intellectual Property

Location

RELATED INSIGHTS​ 

September 30, 2026
Packaging is a valuable commercial asset that helps consumers identify and distinguish products through their shape, colors, graphics, labels, and overall presentation. Obtaining legal protections for these assets is thus an important step. Businesses entering into or operating in the Myanmar market should assess whether trademark protection, industrial design protection, or both provide the strongest IP strategy for these features. The country’s Intellectual Property Department (IPD) under the Ministry of Commerce now administers trademark and industrial design registrations since Myanmar’s modernization of its intellectual property framework through the enactment of four key IP laws in 2019. Trademark Protection for Packaging Under the Trademark Law 2019, a “mark” is any visually perceptible sign, including words, names, letters, numerals, figurative elements, color combinations, or combinations of these signs, capable of distinguishing one undertaking’s goods or services from another’s. Trademark protection may therefore extend to certain elements of product packaging that function as source identifiers. Depending on their presentation and distinctiveness, packaging elements such as brand names, logos, labels, configurations, color combinations, and three-dimensional (3D) shapes may qualify for trademark protection. However, under the current practice of the IPD and its available examination guidelines, the packaging and  trade dress (including product get-up) are not expressly recognized as separate registrable subject matter in Myanmar. Under the Trademark Law 2019, trademark infringement—including unauthorized use of a registered mark on packaging—may give rise to civil remedies, including injunctions and damages, as well as criminal penalties. A 3D mark may protect packaging shape or configuration if it has acquired distinctiveness through use and consumers associate it with the relevant products. However, a shape dictated by a functional or technical purpose is ineligible for registration. Registration of a 3D mark may be renewed indefinitely for successive ten-year periods, subject to compliance with renewal requirements. Industrial Design Protection
Read More
September 30, 2026
Under Thailand’s Patent Act B.E. 2522 (1979), any person may raise the invalidity of a patent as a matter of defense. However, the right to initiate court proceedings to cancel a patent is reserved exclusively for an “interested person” or the public prosecutor. This distinction between merely challenging validity and initiating judicial revocation proceedings has given rise to a significant body of Supreme Court (Dika) jurisprudence interpreting who qualifies as an “interested person” under the Patent Act. Statutory Framework Section 54 of the Patent Act provides that any invention patent granted not in compliance with the patentability requirements will be invalid, and that a petition to cancel such a patent may be submitted to the court by any “interested person” or the public prosecutor. Section 64 mirrors this provision for design patents, and section 65 novies extends the same framework to petty patents. However, none of these provisions defines the term “interested person,” leaving its interpretation to the courts. Supreme Court Interpretation The Thai Supreme Court has developed a consistent body of case law establishing that an “interested person” must be someone directly affected by the existence of the patent—not simply any member of the public. In 1989, the court found (Dika No. 2670/2532) that a party whose intended use of the patented technology was still in a preparatory stage—before actual manufacturing had commenced—did not qualify as an interested person. However, in 2009 the Supreme Court further elaborated  (Dika No. 2906/2552) that an interested party is one whose rights to utilize the invention are restricted by virtue of the patent, such as a manufacturer or producer whose operations are directly impacted by the patentee’s exclusive rights. In the 2008 case of T.M. Grating Steel Co., Ltd. v. Billion Mass Industry Co., Ltd. (Dika No. 974/2551), where the plaintiff had
Read More
September 24, 2026
Vietnam is implementing and developing a broad package of regulatory reforms that could reshape how IP, data, digital platforms, and product authenticity are regulated and enforced. Several of the key measures have been led by the Ministry of Public Security in its legislative and administrative capacity, as part of a broader government effort. The core reform package consists of four key legal instruments: proposed amendments to the Criminal Code, a proposed new Data Security Law, a draft Decree on Product Identification, Authentication and Traceability, and the newly enacted Decree No. 330/2026/ND-CP. These instruments include rules on criminal enforcement, data security, electronic identification, product identification and traceability, administrative violations, and cybersecurity sanctions. Combined, these measures will affect copyright enforcement, industrial property rights, trade secrets, AI training data, product provenance, online takedowns, valuation of counterfeit goods and electronic evidence. It is worth noting that, in addition to strengthening criminal penalties for IP crimes, Vietnam’s emerging regulatory framework increasingly treats infringement, data misuse, product authentication, and platform-enabled violations as interconnected regulatory and enforcement challenges. For rights holders and foreign investors, this could mean stronger tools against counterfeiting and online infringement, but also more compliance obligations around data, traceability, AI, platform controls and government-facing reporting. Expansion of Criminal IP Enforcement Proposed amendments to Article 225 of the Criminal Code would expand criminal copyright exposure beyond reproduction and distribution to cover large-scale commercial public performance and online communication of works, phonograms and video recordings. This is important because piracy is increasingly about streaming, unauthorized communication, and platform access models rather than physical copying. Aggravated copyright infringement could be subject to up to 10 years in prison for individuals and fines of up to VND 6 billion (about USD 228,300) for commercial legal entities. The amended Article 226 would expand criminal industrial property liability beyond
Read More
September 21, 2026
Thailand’s first-to-file trademark system has a serious vulnerability: it lacks both an explicit mechanism for refusing bad-faith registrations and any means of invalidating them in court after the five-year limitation period has expired. While brand owners worldwide confront trademark squatting, Thailand’s statutory silence stands out, particularly in light of AIPPI’s 2017 Resolution Q249, which recommended that every jurisdiction provide clear tools to address bad faith at all stages of the trademark lifecycle. Nearly a decade later, Thailand has yet to act. This article proposes a concrete reform blueprint, drawing on the legislative models of China, the United Kingdom, and the European Union. The Statutory Gap Under the Thai Trademark Act B.E. 2534, no provision expressly authorizes examiners to reject an application on grounds of bad faith. Section 8(10) addresses well-known marks but offers no relief where the targeted mark lacks well-known status. Practitioners have resorted to Section 8(9)—which bars marks “contrary to public order, morality, or public policy”—as a workaround. However, this provision was designed to address the characteristics of the mark itself, not the applicant’s intent. Thai Supreme Court decisions have split on whether it can reach bad-faith conduct, creating persistent legal uncertainty. The gap extends beyond examination. Civil actions to cancel a bad-faith registration must be brought within five years—a deadline that frequently expires before foreign brand owners discover the squatted mark. Cancellation through the Board of Trademarks remains available but is slow, costly, and subject to court appeal, leaving bad-faith registrations in force during protracted proceedings. The system effectively rewards squatters and penalizes legitimate owners. Lessons from International Best Practices Several major jurisdictions have already closed this gap. China’s 2019 amendment to Article 4 of the Trademark Law introduced an absolute ground for refusal: “bad faith trademark applications without intent to use shall be rejected.” Bad
Read More