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​ 

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