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

Search
Close this search box.
August 4, 2021

IP Office Extends Deadlines as Vietnam Battles Fourth Wave of Covid-19

Subscribe to Updates

As Vietnam continues to fight the latest wave of the Covid-19 pandemic with strict social distancing measures, the Intellectual Property Office of Vietnam (IP Office) has issued Notice No. 7581/TB-SHTT dated August 2, 2021 (Notice 7581), extending certain deadlines for IP applicants.

The contents of Notice 7581 are similar to those found in Notice 5277 issued in March 2020 during the first wave of the pandemic. Specifically, Notice 7581 reads as follows:

All procedures related to procedures to establish industrial property rights (priority claims, supplementation of documents, responses to the IP Office’s decisions/notifications, renewal and extension of the validity of protection titles, payment of fees and charges, and filing of appeal petitions) falling due during the period from June 30, 2021, to the end of August 31, 2021, will automatically be extended to the end of September 30, 2021.

For other cases, if an applicant is still affected by the Covid-19 epidemic with regard to the implementation of its rights and obligations in the procedures for establishing rights to industrial property objects at the IP Office, such applicant may request [the IP Office] to apply the clauses on objective obstacles and force majeure as set out in Points 9.4 and 9.5 of Circular No. 01/2007/TT-BKHCN, as amended and supplemented by Circular No. 16/2016/TT-BKHCN.

Observations on the Content of Notice 7581

As with last year’s Notice 5277, it is worth noting that the wording of Notice 7581 covers only the procedures to “establish industrial property rights,” rather than all aspects of industrial property rights. Further, it could be understood that it provides a closed list of industrial property procedures that can enjoy this grace period, and that the deadline extensions would apply only to the specific items listed. Thus, it is uncertain if the deadline extension to September 30, 2021, will also be automatically applied to the following procedures:

  • Filing requests for invalidation
  • Filing requests for renewal of license agreements
  • Filing patent applications
  • Filing requests for substantive examination of patent applications
  • Filing industrial design applications
  • Filing responses to office actions in post-grant procedures

If the deadline extension is not automatically applied to the foregoing procedures, rights holders will need to submit evidence to prove force majeure and objective obstacles to support their late action (if any). In addition, if rights holders proactively request a deadline extension, it is unclear whether the new deadline will be counted from the actual deadline, or from September 30, 2021.

Recommendations

Due to the uncertainties involved in the procedures listed above, and the fact that all applications and requests can still be submitted by post and through the online filing system, to be on the safe side, it is recommended that rights holders take the necessary actions which are excluded from the closed list mentioned above (such as filing a request for trademark invalidation) by the actual deadlines, if possible. Any necessary supplemental documents to support such actions will still enjoy the above grace period and can be submitted by September 30, 2021.

Related Professionals

Practices

Intellectual Property

Location

RELATED INSIGHTS​

August 30, 2024
As in many other countries, registered trademarks in Indonesia that are not used for a given period of time can be canceled. A recent decision (Decision No. 144/PUU-XXI/2023) from the country’s Constitutional Court has extended the non-use cancellation period from three years to five years, applicable from July 30, 2024. This ruling could have a major impact on trademark holders in the country. Background of the Case Article 74 of Indonesia’s Trademark Law of 2016 specifies that trademarks can be canceled if they go unused in the trade of goods or services for three consecutive years from the date of registration or last use. This provision is aligned with the Paris Convention and the TRIPs Agreement. On October 27, 2023, an Indonesian individual named Ricky Thio asked the Constitutional Court to examine the constitutionality of Article 74, arguing that it opened a pathway for third parties to eliminate trademarks owned by small and medium-sized enterprises (SMEs), and did not provide certainty to his registered trademark in terms of the period of protection. Additionally, he argued that the period of three consecutive years was burdensome for SMEs, and asked the court to void Article 74 and add force majeure circumstances—such as Covid-19—as an exemption to non-use cancellation. Mr. Thio submitted this request while he was defending his trademark registration from a non-use cancellation request filed by Zhejiang Dahua Technology Co., Ltd. In his defense to that cancellation request, Mr. Thio explained that the non-use of the trademark was due to the Covid-19 pandemic. The cancellation case followed a different judicial pathway, and was under appeal before the Supreme Court at the time Mr. Thio filed his request for judicial review with the Constitutional Court. Mr. Thio’s case also attracted the submission of an amicus brief—a relatively new trend in Indonesia—from
Read More
August 30, 2024
In 2023, Vietnam’s Intellectual Property Rights Infringement Prevention Cooperation Program reported that 776 cases of IPR infringement were resolved nationwide. Of these, 546 were addressed through administrative measures, while criminal proceedings were initiated in just five cases. These statistics clearly show that administrative measures overwhelmingly dominate the response to counterfeit goods, with criminal actions being relatively rare. This raises an intriguing question: Why do IPR holders prefer administrative routes over criminal measures in Vietnam? And what challenges and obstacles make criminal enforcement less commonly pursued in these cases? Overlapping legal provisions Under Vietnam’s Penal Code, two key offenses address counterfeit goods: Manufacturing and trading in counterfeit goods under Article 192. Manufacturing and trading in industrial property rights-infringing goods under Article 226. Both provisions regulate counterfeit goods, yet they suffer from a lack of clear definitions and guidelines for application. Article 192 does not explicitly define “counterfeit goods”. Instead, authorities refer to Article 3.7 of Decree No. 98/2020/ND-CP, as amended, which outlines several categories of counterfeit goods, including: (i) utility counterfeits (goods not meeting normal expectations of usage or function), (ii) substandard goods, (iii) counterfeit goods based on misrepresentation, and (iv) counterfeit stamps, labels, and packaging. Meanwhile, Article 226 specifically deals with counterfeit goods that infringe trademark rights. These “trademark-counterfeit goods” are defined under Article 213.2 of the IP Law as goods or packaging bearing trademarks or signs that are identical or confusingly similar to protected trademarks for the same goods, used without the trademark owner’s permission. In this regard, “counterfeit goods” and “trademark-counterfeit goods” are treated as distinct, non-overlapping concepts, each corresponding to a separate offense. However, in practice, there is often a gray area where the two overlap. Many cases involve infringing goods that meet the criteria for both categories, allowing authorities to apply both regulations simultaneously. For
Read More
August 30, 2024
With the emergence of online marketplaces and e-commerce platforms, consumers have transformed their ways of engaging in transactions, gaining unprecedented convenience and access to a vast array of products. These platforms allow small businesses and individual entrepreneurs to reach a wider audience in an increasingly competitive market. Challenges in Tracing Online Infringers The growth of these online marketplaces and e-commerce platforms has also given rise to challenges, particularly in locating the actual identity of online infringers and combating intellectual property infringement activities. Online infringers often take advantage of anonymity to offer counterfeit products for sale on their platforms. Not only do these online infringing activities violate the rights of IP owners, but they also involve the sale of counterfeit products that are often manufactured with inferior quality and may pose significant risks to consumers’ health and safety. In today’s modern world, tracing the actual identity of online infringers proves challenging, as infringers adopt numerous methods to conceal their identity. The most frequently used method is using a fake name and address when dispatching parcels to consumers, making it difficult to verify the seller’s identity and the location of the sender on the parcel package. Some infringers exploit cash-on-delivery logistics services to prevent the disclosure of their identity, such as bank account numbers and bank account owner names, which would typically be required for direct payments. Instead, the shipping company collects the payment on their behalf, allowing the infringers to remain anonymous and making it more difficult to find their actual identity. Thailand’s New Regulations on Cash-on-Delivery Logistics Services Recently, the Committee on Contracts of Thailand’s Consumer Protection Board announced the Notification regarding Stipulation of Cash-on-Delivery Logistics Services as a Controlled-Receipt Business B.E. 2567 (2024) under the Consumer Protection Act B.E. 2522 (1979) in the Thai Royal Gazette dated July
Read More
August 7, 2024
A recent case at the Myanmar Competition Commission has set a significant precedent in the country’s approach to unfair competition practices. The case, involving a Thai manufacturer of cement grout and tile adhesive products and a local Myanmar producer, highlighted the Commission’s willingness to address issues of deceptive marketing and unfair competition. Background The case centered around a Thai manufacturer who has been distributing their cement grout and tile adhesive products in Myanmar for many years through local distribution agents. The company had established a well-known brand and a strong reputation for quality in the Myanmar market. In recent years, the Thai company discovered that a local individual in Myanmar was manufacturing and selling similar products with packaging nearly identical to their own. The local producer was using the same mark device, color, and packaging design themes, and the products contained deceptive information. Legal Proceedings After an initial cease-and-desist letter failed to resolve the issue, a complaint was submitted to the Myanmar Competition Commission. The case was notable because the Commission typically does not address issues of copying designs, marks, colors, or packaging themes. However, the complaint emphasized that the local individual was misleading customers and competing unfairly by using deceptive information and copying distinctive designs and themes. Lawyers from Tilleke & Gibbins, representing the Thai manufacturer, provided extensive documentation proving their client’s long-standing presence in the Myanmar market and the local individual’s deceptive practices. The Commission’s Investigation Committee conducted a thorough investigation, including market surveys and hearings involving both parties. Commission’s Decision After nearly a year of deliberation, on July 4, 2024, the Decision-Making Committee of the Myanmar Competition Commission ruled in favor of the Thai manufacturer. The decision required the local individual to: Immediately cease the production and distribution of cement grout and tile adhesive products bearing
Read More

Contact

We have seven offices in six countries
across Southeast Asia.

Contact Us

Careers

We are always seeking great people to grow
our amazing team.

Join Us

Networks

© 2024 Tilleke & Gibbins International Ltd. All rights reserved.

© 2020 Tilleke & Gibbins International Ltd. All rights reserved.

Privacy Policy

| Fraudulent Communications

| Legal Notice