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

June 19, 2019

Vietnam’s IP Law Amended to Comply with CPTPP

Subscribe to Updates

On June 14, 2019, the National Assembly of Vietnam ratified a law amending and supplementing the Law on Insurance Business and the Law Intellectual Property (IP Law), with the primary purpose being to bring the existing laws in line with the terms of the Comprehensive and Progressive Agreement for Trans-Pacific Partnership (CPTPP), which came into effect in Vietnam on January 14, 2019. The key changes in the amended IP Law are presented below.

Patents

Grace period applicable to utility patents

Under the amended IP Law, an invention will not be considered to lack novelty or an inventive step due to public disclosure if: (i) such public disclosure is made by the patent applicant or by a person that obtained the information directly or indirectly from the patent applicant; and (ii) the patent application is filed within 12 months from the date of public disclosure.

This exception does not apply to circumstances where an invention is disclosed in a patent application or granted patent which is made available to the public or published by a patent office, unless erroneously published or unless the application was filed without the consent of the inventor or their successor in title, by a third person who obtained the information directly or indirectly from the inventor.

Previously, the grace period for public disclosure was much shorter, just six months from the date of disclosure, and applied to only a limited number of circumstances.

Geographical Indications

Determination of whether a term is the common name of goods

Although common names of goods were already ineligible for protection as geographical indications under the previous IP Law, there were no details on the method or criteria for determining whether a term was a common name. Under the amended IP Law, this will now be based on the awareness/perception of the relevant Vietnamese consumers.

Third-party opposition to geographical indication applications

Under the amended IP Law, a geographical indication is considered identical or similar to a registered trademark, or a pending trademark under an earlier application, when the use of such geographical indication is likely to cause confusion (instead of “will cause confusion” under the previous IP Law) as to the origin of the prior trademark. This amendment not only extends the protection of a registered trademark, but also provides another ground for opposition to a geographical indication application, by adding pending trademarks under earlier applications.

Recognition and protection of geographical indications under international agreements

The amended IP Law adds provisions concerning the protection and recognition of geographical indications under international agreements, which were not clearly mentioned in the previous law. Under the amended IP Law, rights to geographical indications can be established under international agreements to which Vietnam is a contracting party, without the need to undergo a separate registration procedure in Vietnam. Accordingly, for a request for recognition and protection of a geographical indication under international agreements, the procedure for publication, opposition, assessment of registrability and determination of the scope of protection for that geographical indication will be implemented similarly to the procedures applied for an application for geographical indication registration filed before the NOIP.

Trademarks

Electronic filing system

In addition to the existing paper filing system, applications for IP protection under the amended IP Law can be filed via an electronic application system managed by the NOIP. In fact, although there were no specific provisions concerning electronic filing in the previous law, the NOIP has been using the electronic application system for trademarks and other IP rights since 2017.

Recordal of trademark license agreements

Under the amended IP Law, a license agreement is valid even without recordal at the NOIP, as previously required. It should be noted that such exemption is only available for trademark license agreements. Licenses for other IP rights must still be recorded with the NOIP to be valid.

Use of trademark by licensee

Under the amended IP Law, the use of a trademark by a licensee constitutes use of mark by the trademark holder (for defense against non-use cancellation, for example). This was not clearly stated in the previous law.

Enforcement of IP Rights

Grounds for claiming compensation caused by IP infringement

Under the amended IP Law, it is possible for a holder of IP rights to claim compensation for infringement on any legal basis which the rights holder is able to prove. Under the CPTPP, such determination basis could include lost profits, the value of the infringed goods or services measured by the market price or the suggested retail price, or the infringer’s profits generated from the infringement. This is much more flexible than the previous law, which allowed only certain methods/approaches for calculating damages.

Attorney’s fees

In IP lawsuits, both the plaintiff and the defendant are entitled under the amended IP Law to request the court to force the other party to pay reasonable attorney’s fees. This was previously only available to the plaintiff. The defendant may request attorney’s fees if it is concluded to have not committed an IP infringement.

Abuse of IP rights

To comply with the CPTPP, a new provision concerning compensation for the abuse of IP rights is included under the amended IP Law. In particular, any parties suffering from damages caused by the abuse of IP rights by the rights holder are entitled to request the court to force such rights holder to compensate for the damages, including but not limited to reasonable attorney’s fees. The basis for determining the abuse of IP rights, however, remains vague.

Obligations of customs to provide information on suspected infringing goods

Under the amended IP Law, within 30 days from the issuance date of a decision on suspending customs procedures, the customs agency must provide the rights holder with information on the name and address of the shipper, exporter, consignee, or importer; and a description of the goods, quantity of goods, and country of origin of the goods (if known). Previously, customs was only obliged to provide information to IP rights holders if there was a request for suspension and inspection.

Effectiveness

The amended IP Law will take retroactive effect from January 14, 2019 (i.e., the date of entry into force of CPTPP in Vietnam). Accordingly, provisions under the amended IP Law will apply to:

  • Applications for industrial property rights submitted after January 14, 2019;
  • Requests for invalidation of registered patents, utility models and geographical indications submitted after January 14, 2019;
  • Procedures for cancellation of registered trademarks implemented after January 14, 2019; and
  • Procedures for enforcement of IP rights as requested from January 14, 2019 onwards.

With these changes, Vietnam’s IP Law is increasingly in line with the requirements set out under the CPTPP. However, there are still some matters which have not yet been fully addressed, such as the registration of sound/scent marks and the recognition of well-known trademarks. Further amendment and supplementation of IP legislation is expected soon.

Practices

Intellectual Property

Location

RELATED INSIGHTS​ 

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
July 15, 2026
Ambush marketing refers to a strategy in which a business associates itself with an event, campaign, or brand without paying for official sponsorship rights. The tactic is most visible in sports, concerts, and festivals, where official sponsors have invested substantially for exclusivity. Ambush marketers may use suggestive wording, event-themed imagery, athlete endorsements, venue-adjacent promotions, or social media campaigns implying a commercial connection with the event. Common Forms of Ambush Marketing Ambush marketing typically takes one of the following forms: Direct ambushing: using event names, logos, or mascots suggesting authorization Coattail ambushing: sponsoring an athlete or broadcaster connected with the event Subtle ambushing: themed advertising, venue-adjacent campaigns, or similar visual cues The legal analysis in each case turns on whether the marketing crosses from permissible event-based advertising into infringement, passing off, deception, or wrongful exploitation of goodwill, and the risk assessment is necessarily fact-specific. Thailand has no dedicated ambush marketing statute, so legality depends on execution. A campaign that merely comments on a public event may be permissible, but one that uses protected marks, creates consumer confusion, misrepresents sponsorship status, or makes unsubstantiated claims may trigger liability under various Thai laws, as laid out below. Ambush Marketing and Thailand’s Trademark Act The Trademark Act B.E. 2534 (1991) is the primary tool for addressing campaigns that use registered trademarks, event names, logos, mascots, or confusingly similar signs. The law gives registered trademark owners the exclusive right to use their mark for registered goods, and infringement risk arises when a nonsponsor uses an event mark or a confusingly similar sign in advertising. Even referential or playful use may create liability if it causes public confusion as to sponsorship or commercial connection. The law also preserves passing-off claims for unregistered marks. This matters because event names, taglines, or mascots may not always be
Read More