Copy link






As India marches on in its endeavour to attract more foreign direct investment (FDI), catapult the recognition of intangibles in wealth creation and stimulate a digital economy that also empowers small and medium enterprises, there has been a huge transition in the management, administration and understanding of IP in India.

India, no doubt, is taking great steps towards strengthening its IP ecosystem. New milestones have been set in the quest to foster innovation in the knowledge-driven economy. Some key developments include revamping the administration and infrastructure of the IP offices in India.

The robust judiciary has greatly contributed towards the magnanimous development of IP. Litigation in trademarks, copyrights and patents has reached new heights, with the Indian courts adopting international principles and ruling to protect IP rights strictly to deter infringers. The progress in the years gone by has been vital, promising new milestones in IP in times to come.

Safir Anand
Senior Partner and Head of Trademarks, Commercial & Contractual IP at Anand and Anand
in Noida
Tel: +91 120 4059 300

While this is no doubt progressive, for years the focus of businesses has predominantly been on protection and enforcement of their IP, and rightfully so. However, the demands of the modern world and progressive businesses far outpace such requirements. Beyond the realm of IP protection and enforcement lies the vital field of the creation of IP and leveraging of intangible assets.

The modern way of working considers issues of brand creation, risk mitigation, licensing and franchising, protecting the brand from dilution, commercialisation and monetisation, among many others. The requirement from the legal industry is now to step up and be proactive, rather than reactive.

The author believes that the pursuit of solutions has to be multidimensional, since businesses have several aspects under consideration. Within all this, the solution still has to be legally acceptable under the laws and practice. To accomplish this, the legal industry has to understand the business, be an optimist and anticipate risk from a strategic perspective within the tools of law as provided.

Today, IP should not only serve as insurance against attacks, but a strong protective shield that completely deters violations and safeguards the business and the brand. This would require business leaders across the globe to be more aware and understand how intellectual assets significantly affect business, its valuation, its brand and, along with it, the return on investment.

For this, the area of focus must also shift to understanding industry verticals. The knowledge required to cater to pharmaceutical clients is very different from the knowledge needed to cater to a fast-moving consumer company where marketing and customer experience are paramount. The experience is extremely dissimilar for startups who desire protection and shields around business models, but may be cash strapped.

New issues of IP commercialisation, insurance and mortgage, as well as its relevance in the creative economy and its impact on GDP, brand valuation, brand evaluation, issues of corporate governance, mortgage, insurance, and collaboration through ecosystems are all contemporary concepts that need to be addressed now.

Twinky Rampal
Twinky Rampal
Partner at Anand and Anand
in Noida
Tel: +91 120 4059 300

With economic activities being exponentially driven by new-age inventions, it becomes crucial to safeguard the rights and interests of the inventors. The government has taken many steps in the right direction through policies and schemes, including the launch of its own IP Exchange. Incidentally, this idea was also floated by the author almost 10 years ago, and this approach is a step in the right direction.

The conversations and focus areas for industry bodies that deal with the IP landscape have also transitioned to how innovation impacts IP, licensing in the metaverse, issues of trade secrets, how to structure business plans so that innovation is the focal point of the business, the impact of financial markets on IP, and how to best commercialise IP.

These issues have become talking points as businesses themselves are hungry to absorb the new world order, and such issues are being recognised and adopted by companies driven by a globally competitive scenario. Many companies, dealing with economic slowdown, have understood the need to leverage benefits from such issues and in many cases use them as best practices. Some such issues are also discussed below.

Social and digital media have made the world a small place, and the reach of a brand to unknown parts of the world, and unknown consumers, has never been easier. India already had the concept of well-known trademarks, but has intensified its practice on the declaration of trademarks as well known.

The courts in India recognise the power available to proprietors to obtain a declaration, and directed that the option of filing petitions to seek a well-known declaration must be used, and issued a direction to the registrar of trademarks to act on this. This opportunity is already being acted on by proprietors and will have more takers.

The Securities and Exchange Board of India (SEBI) has made it mandatory for the promoter to disclose the IP status in their IPO, or any follow-on offer, to indicate the schedule of trademarks, the impact of protection or lack of it, and of disputes or challenges in any way that may affect brand or business value.

Status of licences and technology transfers are also to be declared along with issues of ownership being consistent to arms-length, related party transactions, transfer pricing and issues of corporate governance, royalties, and schedules of subsidiary companies or associate companies and their material effect, if any, on such intangibles.

Disclosures of ongoing grants of patents or trademarks, or court actions, or changes in royalties, need to be communicated as also resolutions to buy, sell or mortgage them. Corporate governance and audit reports are now focusing on IP risks and opportunities, including getting an assessment of any IP grant or breach to the earnings.

In fact, corporate governance and IP is an exciting and developing space. Every decision that a company takes, including ones that impact IP on royalties, impacts shareholders.

With the above-mentioned mandate from the SEBI, periodically conducting IP audits is vital to ensure that the IP being created is protected. In fact, in many cases, audits help in identifying IP that exists in a business but may not have been protected.

Brand valuations have also evolved from damages in courts to breach of contracts, to having a transactional aspect. Clauses on the IP valuation at opportune moments in transactions between two parties are a relevant point for businesses to consider. Brand valuations are not just relevant to identify cash flows but also for fundraising. In fact, more than 90% of the valuation is for the IP in the business as per many industry reports. It becomes imperative to have valuation norms, then. For example, the insurance of IP is a complicated exercise in the absence of valuation norms.

The SEBI has also been keeping its eye on related party transactions catapulting the overlap of IP and taxation to a great degree. Inculcating and capturing the ecosystem of IP in the business or company is also a vital area.

It is important that top management constantly talk about their focus on IP to their employees, as it sensitises all the relevant people in the ecosystem to ensure there is no IP leakage, and to capitalise on hidden IP, if any.

Another step towards capturing the innovation in the business is by ensuring that the company has policies and a framework for research and development, i.e. all the creative units in the company must log the work being created and ensure that the work is communicated to the legal teams for protection. There needs to be a more holistic discussion between corelation of innovation to utility v IP filing, given shareholder interest in better deployment of funds.

India is also looking to have substantial growth in the brand protection landscape with the help of artificial intelligence (AI), as it’s a game changing technology that is bound to have a significant impact on IP law.

The Advertising Standards Council of India has started its own actions against brands for false, exaggerated or disparaging claims in advertisements, with substantial complaints issued last year. Seeking legal counsel has gained traction, as it also adds to reputation management.

Advertisements are corporate assets and it is vital to ensure that they are not just legally compliant but create a harmonious conversation between marketers, advertisers and lawyers to produce a value-driven campaign. Stronger guidelines have been framed for celebrities and influencers, the crypto-regulated industry, and the gaming industry. For example, social media endorsements are getting regulated to be identified as paid promotions rather than routine feedback.

With substantial innovation and the convergence of business with law, having a basket of solutions so that the business can be reconciled to the best or optimum solutions with the least risk and highest governance is needed more than ever.

The legal profession has to be far more savvy about business, and much more creative. To this effect, it has become necessary to be educated with newer technologies, the risk-to-reward ratio, risk mitigation and other strategic measures that may enhance the scope of success or mitigate the probability of a loss or risk at best.


Anand and Anand
First Channel Building Plot No. 17 A
Sector 16 A, Film City
Noida 201301, India
Tel: +91 120 4059 300


In Indonesia, Law No. 20, 2016, on Marks and Geographical Indications, known as the Trademark Law, is the country’s primary law concerning trademarks. However, there are several bylaws that regulate more specific matters, including:

  • Government Regulation No. 28, 2019, concerning Types and Tariffs of Non-Tax State Revenues Applicable to the Ministry of Law and Human Rights, which sets the official fees for various actions that can be filed before the Directorate General of Intellectual Property (DGIP) under the Ministry of Law and Human Rights of Indonesia;
  • Government Regulation No. 22, 2018, pertaining to the International Registration of Marks Under the Protocols Relevant to the Madrid Agreement Concerning the International Registration of Marks, which covers all aspects of international registration filed in or from Indonesia;
  • Government Regulation No. 90, 2019, concerning the Trademark Appeal Commission, established on 29 August 1995, concerning Procedures for Application, Examination and Settlement of Appeals at the Mark Appeal Commission; and
  • The Ministry of Law and Human Rights Regulation No. 67, 2016, concerning the Trademark Registration Decree of the Director General of Intellectual Property in the Field of Trademarks. The ministerial regulation prescribes, among other things, the requirements of registration, classes of goods and services, and the rectification of issued certificates and recordals.

Scope of trademarks

Emirsyah Dinar
Managing Partner at AFFA Intellectual Property Rights in Jakarta
Tel: +62 812 8700 0889

According to article 1 of the Trademark Law, a mark is any sign capable of being represented graphically in the form of drawings, logos, names, words, letters, numerals, colour arrangements, in two and/or three-dimensional shapes, sounds, holograms, or a combination of two or more of these elements to distinguish goods and/or services produced by a person or legal entity in trading goods and/or services.

Given this definition, the law acknowledges two types of trademarks: traditional and non-traditional marks.

Applying for registration

Since the Trademark Law adopts the first-to-file principle, in general, any individual, organisation or company can file for trademark registration. However, the law also regulates trademark registrations that are filed in bad faith. Article 21 of the Trademark Law stipulates that an application is refused if it is submitted by an applicant in bad faith.

While the implementation of this article during substantive examination holds true for some applications that have similarities with the already established and well-known marks, in practice, it is quite challenging to determine whether an application is filed in bad faith or not.

A bad-faith application that later matured to registration can always be invalidated at the Court of Commerce, as regulated under article 77 of the Trademark Law, which stipulates the following: “The lawsuit for invalidation may be filed in unlimited time if there is bad faith and/or the relevant mark contravenes the state ideology, laws and regulations, morality, religions, decency and public order.”

Filing and documentation

A trademark search is strongly suggested for anyone who wishes to file a trademark application in Indonesia. The search report will identify potential hazards and stumbling blocks to an otherwise successful registration process.

Assuming the search report gives an all-clear sign to further the application process, the applicant will then need to supply the following:

  • Name of applicant
  • Address
  • List of goods and services
  • Representation of the mark to be filed, which can be in the form of woodmark, logo or non-traditional marks

Once the necessary information has been provided, the patent lawyer will prepare two documents to be signed by the client: a power of attorney, and a statement of mark ownership.

Since 2019, e-filing is the only acceptable method of filing in Indonesia.


Assuming the application does not receive any opposition and provisional refusal, then it may only take 10-13 months from filing to obtaining a registration number. This estimate is significantly faster than it used to be, when even a straightforward registration would take two to three years.

Opposition and invalidation

Applications are published for two months only. During the publication period, any interested party may file for opposition, and they will be considered during the substantive examination stage.

Once the publication period has lapsed, there are no other formal means of filing for opposition, including extension requests.

To have a successful opposition proceeding, it is strongly recommended that the opposer has valid legal standing, namely, an earlier trademark application or registration in Indonesia. Otherwise, it is likely that the examiner will reject the opposition by citing the first-to-file principle.

Invalidations and cancellations initiated by any third party, which have to be filed at the court of commerce, are only feasible once the trademarks to be invalidated or cancelled have been registered.

Famous foreign trademarks

A trademark can only be protected if it is registered in Indonesia, regardless of its fame. However, the Trademark Law has a mechanism to somewhat protect a famous foreign trademark from bad-faith registrations by other parties.

Should another party try to maliciously file an application for a trademark that is identical or similar to a famous foreign trademark, such application will be rejected on the basis of article 21 of the Trademark Law, which stipulates the following:

“An application is refused if the mark is substantively similar to or identical with a well-known mark of other parties for similar goods and/or services, or a well-known mark of other parties for different goods and/or services complying with certain requirements.”

The issue is then shifted to what constitutes as a famous trademark. Article 18 of the Ministry of Law and Human Rights Regulation No. 67, 2016, concerning the Trademark Registration Decree of the Director General of Intellectual Property in the Field of Trademark, has set out the criteria of what makes a trademark famous:

  • Level of knowledge or public recognition of the mark in the business field concerned as a well-known mark;
  • Volume of sales of goods and/or services and benefits derived from using the mark by the owner;
  • Market share controlled by the mark in relation to the circulation of goods and/or services in the community;
  • Area of use of the mark;
  • Period of use of the mark;
  • Intensity of promotion of the mark, including the value of investment used for the promotion;
  • Number of trademark applications and registrations around the world;
  • Success rate of law enforcement, in particular regarding the recognition of the mark as a well-known mark by an authorised institution; and
  • Valuation of the mark because of the reputation and quality assurance of goods and/or services protected by the mark.

However, a mark that is famous abroad does not always necessarily have the same level of fame in Indonesia. This raises an issue of whether or not the trademark owner should also establish its fame in Indonesia before taking any actions against other parties.

Usage requirements

Since Indonesia adopts the first-to-file principle, a prior use does not need to be claimed before registration. The evidence of use does not have to be submitted.

If the applicant has filed another application earlier in other countries, the applicant has six months from the priority date to claim priority in Indonesia.

Concerning non-use, by law, a trademark may be cancelled at the court of commerce if a registered mark has not been used for three consecutive years from the date of registration or from the date of last use. However, the law does not stipulate the minimum threshold of use – hence, in general, any non-use cancellation is very challenging.


A registered mark can be licensed out to other parties in Indonesia. For the agreement to have binding legal effect, it will have to be recorded at the DGIP.

In general, a licence agreement should cover the details of the licensor and the licensee, the nature of licensing (exclusive or non-exclusive), the ability to sublicense (or not), the terms of the licence agreement, rights and responsibilities of the parties, and the object or trademark to be licensed.

The licensing agreement must not contain provisions that directly or indirectly damage the Indonesian economy, or limitations obstructing Indonesia’s capacity to acquire and develop technology.


AFFA Intellectual Property Rights
15/F Graha Pratama Building
Jl. MT. Haryono Kav. 15
Jakarta – 12810, Indonesia
Tel: +62 21 8379 3812


Trademark protection is obtained through registration in Taiwan and follows the first-to-file system in application. The following types of distinctive signs are registrable: trademarks (for both goods and services); collective marks; certification marks; and collective trademarks (for both goods and services).

In addition, according to the Examination Guidelines on Non-traditional Trademarks issued by the Taiwan Intellectual Property Office, smells, patterns and positions are also registrable as a trademark, while tactile and gustatory signs are only exceptionally registrable.


CF Tsai
Managing Partner at Deep & Far Attorneys-at-Law in Taipei
Tel: +886 2 2598 9900 (Ext 8699)

An application is filed at the Taiwan Intellectual Property Office. Multiple-class applications are possible and foreign applicants with no domicile or business office in Taiwan need a local agent to file the application. However, a legalised and/or notarised power of attorney is not required, and foreign applicants do not need a domestic company or domicile registration.

The application process includes a formal examination, an examination of absolute grounds (e.g. distinctiveness), and an examination of relative grounds (e.g. likelihood of confusion). Signs without innate distinctiveness can be registered if distinctiveness has been acquired through use.

Opposing a trademark

The opposition period is three months extending from the publication date of the trademark registration.


Trademark registration is valid for 10 years from the publication date of the registration and is renewable for another decade.

Grace period for renewal

A trademark may be renewed within six months preceding the expiry date. The grace period for trademark renewal is six months from expiry date of the registration. After expiry of the grace period, the trademark registration will automatically lapse.

A lapsed mark cannot be restored. However, if the owner failed to comply with the grace period for renewal due to force majeure or any cause not attributable to the owner, an application for restoration may be filed within 30 days from the day after the cause vanishes.

However, no application for restoration may be made beyond one year after failure to comply with the grace period for renewal. A lapsed trademark may be re-registered in the name of a third party at any time if the renewal application is not filed within the grace period.

Use requirements

Tsai Lu-Fa
Partner at Deep & Far Attorneys-at-Law in Taipei
Tel: 886 2 2598 9900 (Ext 8187)

If a trademark has not been used for three years from publication date of the registration, or has not been used later for a continuous period of three years without a justifiable cause, the IP Office may ex officio, or at the request of a third party, cancel the registration.

The party alleging non-use of a trademark needs to provide prima facie evidence on petitioning for the cancellation of the trademark registration, while the trademark owner bears the burden of proving trademark use after the cancellation proceeding is initiated. In addition, the party alleging non-use of a trademark is not required to prove a legitimate interest in the trademark cancellation.

Use is only required to be done in Taiwan. Trademark use, as defined in the Trademark Act, means using a trademark for marketing purposes in any of the following situations to enable relevant consumers to recognise it as a source identifier:

  • Applying for a trademark on goods or the packaging;
  • Possessing, displaying, selling, exporting or importing the above-mentioned goods;
  • Applying for a trademark on articles relating to services provided; and
  • Applying for a trademark on commercial documents or advertisements relating to goods or services.

Use of a mark on digital video or audio, electronic media, the internet or other media also constitutes use of the trademark. Use need not necessarily have been continuous, as sporadic, intermittent or one-off use will suffice.

But using a similar or related trademark will not necessarily suffice. Use of a mark in a form different from the form in which it is registered constitutes use of the trademark only if merely minor changes have been made without altering its distinctive parts.

Use of the mark in a different form does not constitute use if:

  • A coloured trademark is changed to black-and-white;
  • The colours of a coloured trademark are changed; or
  • Only part of a trademark has been used.

Licence agreement

Tsai Yu-Li
Partner at Deep & Far Attorneys-at-Law in Taipei
Tel: +886 2 2598 9900 (Ext 8139)

In Taiwan, a licence agreement may be concluded in writing or orally. It is permitted to license an unregistered trademark for all or part of the designated goods or services. A licence may be exclusive or non-exclusive.

If a registered trademark is assigned after the licence has been entered into the register, the assignee is still bound by the licence agreement. The sale of a registered trademark does not automatically terminate the licence if the licence of the registered trademark is entered in the register.

The Trademark Act provides for the following:

  • If a trademark is assigned subsequent to the recordal of a trademark licence, the assignee shall be bound by the licence agreement;
  • An exclusive licensee has the right to exclude the trademark owner and any third party from the use of the licensed trademark;
  • An exclusive licensee has the right to sublicense the trademark; and
  • A trademark owner may abandon their rights. However, if a licence or a pledge has been entered into the register, the trademark owner shall obtain the consent of the licensee or pledgee.

There are provisions in the Trademark Act for the recordal of a trademark licence. The recordal of a trademark licence is voluntary but becomes effective against third parties only after it is recorded at the IP Office. The recordal must be applied for before the expiration of the trademark registration.

The licence period may exceed the registration period. In this case, if the trademark registration is renewed within the renewal deadline, the licence does not need to be recorded again. If the trademark registration is not renewed within the renewal deadline, the licence recordal will lapse with lapse of the registration. However, the licence agreement for the unregistered trademark will still be effective between the licensor and licensee.

There are no statutory provisions prescribing the form and/or content of a licence agreement. A request to record a trademark licence in the register shall be made by the trademark owner or the licensee by filing a written request specifying the following:

  • Name, address of domicile or business establishment, nationality or locality of the trademark owner and licensee and, if any, name of the representative;
  • If any, name and address of domicile or business establishment of the agent;
  • Registration number of the trademark;
  • Whether the licence is exclusive or non-exclusive;
  • Date when the licence took effect and, if any, will be terminated;
  • Whether the licence is for part of the designated goods or services, the list of such goods or services and the classes; and
  • Whether the licence is for a particular locality, the name of that locality.

The licence agreement determines when the licence becomes effective. The licence becomes enforceable against third parties on the date when the licence recordal is published in the official gazette. An unrecorded licence is not required to be published.

There is an evidentiary presumption that the trademark use of a recorded licensee is legal use. A non-exclusive licensee may not join the trademark owner’s infringement proceedings unless the trademark owner petitions the court for third-party participation.

The Trademark Act provides that an exclusive licensee has the right to initiate infringement proceedings in its own name unless the licence agreement provides otherwise. The licensee does not need to cite the trademark owner as a co-defendant in any such proceedings.


Deep & Far Attorneys-at-Law
13/F, 27 Sec. 3, Chung San N. Rd.
Taipei 104, Taiwan
Tel: +886 2 2585 6688 (Ext 8187)


Vietnam is one of Southeast Asia’s fastest growing digital economies, expected to reach USD49 billion by 2025, according to the latest annual e-Conomy SEA joint research report from Google, Temasek and Bain & Co. The transformation from such rapid internet economy and trade growth has required changes and updates to the country’s government policy and legal environment, including the Intellectual Property Law.

Looking back on the past 16 years of practice, the IP Law has played a great role in creating a wide and intensive legal path for the creation and protection of IP rights in Vietnam, strengthening the country’s socioeconomic development.

Taking effect on 1 January 2023, the IP Law has been amended and supplemented to leverage the existing provisions on the protection of IP rights towards the protection of IP rights under the Comprehensive and Progressive Agreement for Trans-Pacific Partnership (CPTPP) and the EU-Vietnam Free Trade Agreement (EVFTA), and to be ready to face the “industry 4.0” era.

Clearer guidance

Nguyen Anh Tuan
Managing Partner at
Bizconsult in Hanoi
Tel: +84 90 340 4242

As part of the effort to bring its IP Law into line with international standards of protection of the CPTPP and the EVFTA, from 14 January 2023, Vietnam has begun to accept applications for the registration of sound marks. This is the first time for Vietnam to register this type of non-traditional mark. Apart from documents required for the applications for registering traditional marks, a sonic file and a graphical representation of the sound mark shall be attached to the applications for registering sound marks.

A well-known mark under the amended IP Law is redefined as a mark widely known by relevant parts of the public in the territory of Vietnam, which is consistent with the system of criteria of a well-known mark as defined in article 75 of the IP Law, and other international regulations. This redefinition amends the previous IP law in which a well-known mark was required to be extensively known by all consumers in general. Besides, a mark may be accepted as a well-known mark if it meets some or all of the criteria in article 75.

The possibility of refusal of an application or cancellation of a registered mark on the grounds of bad intention has been explicitly recognised, with the definition of bad intention referred to in articles 96 and 117 of the amended IP Law needing to be clarified.

In addition, the amended IP Law has outlined two new absolute grounds on which applications for marks can be rejected. Marks may be deemed ineligible for protection if they are considered to take the inherent shape or form of the goods, or are defined by technical characteristics of the goods required, or comprise copyrighted works without permission from copyright owners.

Practical, specific instructions

Legal definitions of the terms “author” and “co-author” have been updated under the amended IP Law. Accordingly, an author is the person who directly creates the work, and a co-author is clarified as one of the two or more authors who work together directly on creating the work, with the intention that their contributions will be combined into a complete whole.

Ly Nguyen
Associate at Bizconsult in Hanoi

Someone who only supports, consults or provides material for other people’s creations shall not be considered the author or co-author.

The amended IP Law also establishes new definitions of terms, including royalties, rights management information, and communicating with the public, as well as revisions of other definitions that make them consistent with the existing terms of the IP Law, namely derivative work, published works, phonograms, video recordings and reproductions, among others.

The amended IP Law entitles authors to transfer the right to give titles to their works to organisations or individuals as the transferees of property rights related to the works.

The IP Law also clarifies some exceptions to the infringement of copyright and related rights, consistent with the act of reproductions and use as mentioned in the previous terms. Article 25(a) sets out that other certain exemptions from copyright infringement apply to persons with disabilities, their caregivers and authorised entities founded and operating for the benefit of such individuals as prescribed by law.

Such exceptions aim to develop disability-sensitive legislation and to ensure harmony of interests between the copyright holder and organisations or individuals accessing and exploiting the work.

Infringements of copyright and related rights are further revised and specified as a legal basis for identifying IP-related violations to strengthen the mechanism to deal with copyright infringement when resolving disputes in the IP field.

Intermediary service providers, according to the amended regulations, shall have legal responsibilities in connection with the protection of copyright and related rights on the internet and telecommunication networks.

For example, intermediary service providers must set up a system of checking, monitoring, information processing and co-ordination to prevent acts that infringe copyright and related rights. Besides, such providers may be exempted from liability in some cases.

The related decree to guide the amended IP Law will replace Decree 22/2018, which provides guidelines for a certain number of articles of the previous version of the law. The third draft of the new decree is now available to the public and will be officially released in 2023.

Tightening patent provisions

Regulations related to secret invention and patent security control, which are previously stipulated in Decree No. 122/2010 and supplementing Decree No. 103/2006 to guide the implementation of the IP Law, are officially introduced in the amended IP Law for the first time.

This development will encourage early filing abroad, especially for those enterprises that do not intend to exploit their inventions in Vietnam.

Under the amended IP Law, there is another type of patent that relates to disclosure of an invention, where such invention shall be deemed to have lost its novelty. Specifically, an invention may not meet the novelty requirement if it is disclosed in another patent application with an earlier filing or priority date, but published on or after the filing date or priority date of such patent application.

The cancellation of a patent protection title’s validity is clearly and distinctly established in the amended IP Law by listing certain cases under which the registered patent may be cancelled in whole or in part. This revision makes it easier for the concerned parties to exercise their rights to cancel the validity of a patent protection title.

Industrial design

The amended IP Law redefines an industrial design by adding signs such as component parts of complex products and a feature visible during the process of exploiting the use of such products and complex products in compliance with the EVFTA.

One crucial aspect of industrial design registration that must not be overlooked in the new IP Law is, for the first time, that an applicant is allowed to publish an industrial design application at a later date, but no later than seven months from the filing date, provided that the applicant has filed a duly requested letter for delay at the time of filing the application.

The outlook

The amended IP Law remains vague and unclear over some points, and further IP-related guidelines, including four decrees and two circulars, need to be revised, amended or replaced. Still, the adjustments and supplements under the amended IP Law bring Vietnam into broad and general compliance with international treaties and common practices, and as such are to be welcomed.


VNA Building 20 Tran Hung Dao Street
Hoan Kiem District Hanoi, Vietnam
Tel: +84 24 3933 2129

Back to INTA2023 page for more IP articles

Copy link