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​ 

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
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