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​ 

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