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 1, 2019

Newly Signed EU-Vietnam Free Trade Agreement to Improve IP Protection in Vietnam

Subscribe to Updates

On June 30, 2019, in Hanoi, representatives from the European Union and Vietnam officially signed the historic EU-Vietnam Free Trade Agreement (EVFTA), a comprehensive and mutually beneficial agreement in which thoughtful consideration was given to the development gap between the two parties. The ambitious agreement includes a number of provisions on intellectual property, which we discuss below.

Patent

Patent Law Treaty: Under the EVFTA, each party will simplify and develop its patent registration procedures using, inter alia, the multilateral Patent Law Treaty (PLT) as a reference point, though to date neither Vietnam nor the EU are contracting states of the PLT. This regulation is considered reasonable for both parties to develop their patent regimes in the same direction. Accordingly, it is anticipated that Vietnam’s IP Law as amended in the future will be affected by the PLT.

Patent Term Extension/Restoration: As set out in the EVFTA, for the first time, when a patent owner suffers from unreasonable delays from an authorized office while requesting marketing authorization, the member countries will have to adjust the patent term to make up for such delay. As Vietnam has been cited as having “concerning marketing approval delays” for human drug products, it is certain that the regulations will be amended/supplemented to add a mechanism under which patent protection for human drugs may be extended beyond a 20-year term.

Design

The Vietnam design system is an examination system, and the scope of design protection is quite narrow at present. For example, for a normal design, seven basic views must be submitted and partial designs (inseparable parts of products) are not protected. Under the EVFTA, there will likely be many changes.

The Hague Agreement: Vietnam must participate in the Geneva Act (1999) of the Hague Agreement within two years from the date when the EVFTA takes effect. Vietnam has recently taken steps to prepare for participating in this agreement, so participation is expected to be concluded soon. When participating in this agreement, applicants will benefit from, for example, having more options, and requirements are more flexible.

Partial designs: Under Article 12.35.1, Footnotes 7 and 9 of the EVFTA, it should be understood that Vietnam will protect partial designs. Vietnam currently protects only whole designs (the whole product or a separable part/component of a product); the protection of partial design has been a controversial topic for many years. If Vietnam protects partial designs, it will be more favorable to the application of the Hague Agreement.

Visibility: According to the EVFTA, for designs of components of a complex product, only designs and features of designs that are visible during normal use of the product are protected. Normal use excludes maintenance, service, or repair work. This provision is similar to the regulations of the EUIPO on designs. Vietnam has issued corresponding regulations on visibility of designs. Nevertheless, the protection of visible features should be clarified, either by new laws or by changes in practice.

Protection of designs as copyrighted works: According to the EVFTA, a design is also eligible for protection under the laws on copyright as from the date on which the design was created or fixed in any form. Vietnam’s current IP Law generally meets the EVFTA regulations; however, there are some gaps. For example, the laws are silent as to the level of originality required for a work to be eligible for protection.

Trademark

Among the few trademark issues raised by the EVFTA, the most notable is the concept of “genuine use,” which is an international standard but is absent from Vietnam’s current IP Law. Specifically, the EVFTA requests the parties to provide that a registered trademark will be liable to revocation (termination) if, within a continuous period of five years prior to a request for revocation, it has not been put to genuine use by its owner or the owner’s licensee in the relevant territory in connection with the goods or services in respect of which it is registered, without justifiable reasons, except where the use is commenced or resumed at least three months before the request for revocation.

As Vietnam’s current IP Law does not specifically mention the scale or type of use required to defend a mark from a non-use cancellation action, many marks survive the non-use action based on some token use only. The introduction of this requirement may help to clear the register from marks that are not genuinely used by the mark owners.

Further, the EVFTA also sets out a requirement that the parties may provide that a trademark can be subject to revocation if, after the date on which it was registered, it has become, as a result of acts or inactivity of the proprietor, the common (generic) name in the trade for a product or service in respect of which it is registered. While such revocation/termination is not a rare occurrence in Vietnam, the IP Law does not specifically mention this possibility for revocation. The EVFTA’s requirement on this matter is helpful to formalize the practice and provide more certainty in legal action for the interested parties.

Geographical Indications

According to Annex 12A of the EVFTA, 171 EU GIs and 39 Vietnamese GIs have been protected without going through the standard registration process. However, in general, a geographical indication (GI) must pass a standard registration process with the Vietnam Intellectual Property Office to be protected in Vietnam.

Such protection may be rejected if there is a homonymous GI which may mislead consumers. Although Vietnam has the right to decide on the conditions in which homonymous GIs are considered different from each other, the current regulations are silent on this issue.

The EVFTA also provides a grandfather clause for certain GIs for cheese and wine, which shows the effort to harmonize the rights of stakeholders from different jurisdictions.

Enforcement of IP Rights

In general, the EVFTA sets out a higher standard for IP enforcement for Vietnam. For example, the EVFTA requires the active involvement of customs authorities in targeting and identifying shipments containing imported/exported goods suspected of infringing IP rights. Although the current IP Law does not have any conflict with this provision under the EVFTA, at present, IP rights holders typically need to be proactive to ensure the full involvement of the customs authorities.

The EVFTA also requires customs authorities to cooperate with rights holders, including allowing the provision of information for risk analysis, which is not yet mentioned under the current IP Law. In addition, there are numerous enforcement issues raised by the EVFTA which will require the IP Law to be amended and supplemented to be compatible with the EVFTA, such as the application of provisional measures, and presumption of authorship or ownership.

Outlook

Vietnam is engaging in a major project of reviewing the results of implementation of the 2005 IP Law with an eye on a comprehensive amendment of this law in the near future. It is expected that the changes mentioned above will be included in the potential amended IP Law in 2020 as the result of the review project.

Related Professionals

Practices

Intellectual Property

Location

RELATED INSIGHTS​ 

August 13, 2026
Modern agricultural machinery is no longer purely mechanical but instead technology dependent. Modern tractors, harvesters, and other farm equipment increasingly incorporate embedded software, electronic control units, sensors, and digital diagnostic systems. While such technologies enhance efficiency, productivity, and precision farming, they also affect the manner of equipment repair and maintenance. As a result, farmers and independent repair providers may have little practical choice but to rely on authorized dealers, even for routine maintenance and repairs. Section 36 of Thailand’s Patent Act reflects the principle that the authorized sale of a patented invention usually exhausts the exclusive right of the patent owner over the specific product. This means that upon legal sale of the patented product, it can typically be used or resold without further authorization from the patent holder. This principle is relatively straightforward when applied to traditional mechanical equipment. Ownership of a machine ordinarily carries with it the practical ability to diagnose faults, replace worn parts, and restore the equipment to working order. Modern agricultural machinery, however, increasingly depends on embedded software, proprietary diagnostic systems, firmware updates, and other digital resources that may remain under the control of the manufacturer or patent holder. This tension lies within the “right to repair” debate. In the United States, on July 8, 2026, the Federal Trade Commission and five states announced a settlement with Deere & Company resolving allegations that Deere had unlawfully restricted farmers’ and independent repair providers’ ability to repair their equipment. Under the terms of the settlement, for the next ten years, Deere must provide repair resources, including software capabilities, on terms equivalent to those provided to authorized dealers. The Deere settlement highlights that the nature of ownership is changing, but legal concepts have not kept pace. Traditional patent-law concepts, including patent exhaustion, were developed with physical products
Read More
August 10, 2026
Thailand has finalized its social media KYC (“know your customer”) rules under Notification of the Electronic Transactions Commission on Measures to Prevent Technological Crimes for Social Media Service Providers (No. 2), which was published in the Government Gazette on May 5, 2026, and will take effect on November 1, 2026. While an early draft of the notification proposed requiring social media platforms to arrange identification of every user account, the final notification is significantly more targeted, focusing on paid online advertising and advertiser identity verification. Though the regulatory initiative primarily aims to combat online fraud and technology-related crimes, it also has important consequences for intellectual property enforcement, because the verified platform records that will be generated under the new requirements can help IP rights holders to identify anonymous online infringers. Key Regulatory Mandates The notification requires social media service providers to verify the identity of advertisers before their paid advertisements are published and disseminated in Thailand through social media, regardless of whether the advertising fees come from the advertisers or third parties. Verification of an advertiser is valid for one year, after which verification would have to be performed again before the platform could publish additional paid advertisements from the advertiser. Permitted verification methods are specified under the notification. A platform may verify an advertiser by checking identity evidence and confirming the connection between the advertiser and that identity evidence, with the notification giving facial comparison against certain government-issued identity documents as an example. Alternatively, platforms may verify advertisers through a digital identity verification and authentication system with an identity-proofing assurance level not lower than the level prescribed by Thailand’s Electronic Transactions Commission. The notification further requires platforms to retain only the advertiser’s information necessary to identify the advertiser, beginning from the start of the advertising activity and for
Read More
August 6, 2026
Introduction: A Trademark Paradox in Sustainable Packaging Walk into any Thai supermarket, and the label-free water bottle is no longer a novelty. Thailand’s packaging market, valued at approximately USD 15.68 billion in 2025, is shifting toward minimalist, plastic-light designs as ESG pressures reshape how brands present their products. The country generated roughly 5.68 million tons of plastic waste in 2021, with a recycling rate of only 19 percent, and regulators are now considering rules that would allow label-free bottled water relying on embossing, laser printing, or QR codes instead of wrap-around labels. As packaging itself becomes the brand identifier, a paradox emerges: designs built to say the least often struggle hardest for protection under Thai intellectual property law. The Trademark Barrier: When Shape Is Not Enough Section 7, paragraph 2(10) of the Thai Trademark Act deems a shape distinctive only if it is not the natural form of the goods, is not necessary to achieve a technical result, and does not add value to the goods. The Department of Intellectual Property’s 2022 examination guidelines apply this test conservatively, as the following examples illustrate. A plain water bottle relying on subtle contours to signal its brand is typically read as just another bottle, not a source identifier. Acquired distinctiveness offers a theoretical escape route, but it demands extensive evidence of sales, advertising, and consumer recognition—an especially heavy burden for new entrants whose minimalist packaging has not yet achieved market prominence. The result is a structural bias against precisely the design innovation that sustainability goals are meant to encourage. Design Patents: A Partial, Imperfect Substitute Design patent protection, covering a product’s shape, configuration, or ornamentation, appears to offer an alternative route. In practice, it is constrained by the same forces driving the minimalist trend. Because many brands converge on similar solutions—clear
Read More
August 4, 2026
Intellectual property (IP) protection sometimes hinges on fame and recognition. However, this alone will not always be sufficient to overcome an IP dispute when it involves contractual obligations or registered rights. Below are five cases from around the world that tackle some of the basic issues in IP registration, ownership, commercialization, and enforcement. 1. USA: Taylor Swift Trademark Application Refused Taylor Swift recently filed a trademark application to register “The Life of a Showgirl,” which is the title of her 12th studio album. When examining a trademark application, the examiner considers various factors before deciding whether it should be registered. One of these factors is whether there is a likelihood of confusion (i.e., would a regular consumer mistake the origin of the trademark). In Taylor Swift’s case, the US Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO) decided that that there would be a risk of confusion. This decision was based on the existing registered trademark, “Confessions of a Showgirl,” owned by Maren Wade, which was registered in 2015. The USPTO refused Taylor Swift’s application based on the shared key distinctive element “of a showgirl,” the lack of sufficient distinguishing terms, the marks being used in overlapping markets (entertainment and performances), and because consumers may assume a common commercial source. Maren Wade then filed a lawsuit in California against Taylor Swift and her affiliated companies, arguing that Taylor Swfit’s branding is confusingly similar in structure, wording, and overall commercial impression to her registered mark. She is also drawing on the USPTO’s refusal of Taylor Swift’s application to support her argument of a likelihood of confusion. A judgment has not yet been reached in this case, but it serves as an important reminder of the importance of satisfying the essential elements required for IP registration. 2. Australia: Katy Perry v. Katie Perry In
Read More