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.
April 21, 2020

Vietnam IP Office Announces Assistance for Domestic PCT Applicants

Subscribe to Updates

In recent years, the Intellectual Property Office of Vietnam (IP Office) has promoted the domestic development of intellectual property through a range of activities under the National Program for IP Asset Development. These activities include public awareness campaigns, trade promotion activities, IP training, and support for the registration of IP rights of Vietnamese individuals and organizations.

As an example of such activities, on April 15, 2020, the IP Office issued Official Letter No. 5360/SHTT-NDHT regarding assistance to Vietnamese individuals in filing international (PCT) patent applications. The main contents of the letter are summarized below.

(i) Entities to be Assisted:

The assistance is available to Vietnamese individuals who are applicants with technical solutions that meet the following requirements:

  • Able to meet the patent protection requirements;
  • Can be applied in practice in manufacturing and business activities;
  • Have not yet received any financial assistance from the state budget for international invention patent registration;
  • Filed patent applications with the IP Office between August 15, 2019, and May 15, 2020.

(ii) Assistance to be Provided:

Eligible applicants can receive the following assistance:

  • Advice and guidance on the general procedures and regulations and the documents required for filing international patent applications;
  • Revision of specifications to meet the requirements for filing in the international phase and translation of the specifications into English;
  • Assistance with preparation of various application documents, and filling in the application form as stipulated;
  • Payment of the IP agent’s fee in Vietnam;
  • International filing in the form of filing PCT patent applications in the international phase.

(iii) Financial Support:

The IP Office will cover 70% of the total costs of filing PCT patent applications in the international phase up to a maximum of VND 60 million (about USD 2,550) per solution. The individuals involved are responsible for paying the remaining cost.

(iv) Sending and Receiving Proposal Forms:

Individuals wishing to take advantage of this program should submit a proposal for assistance in international patent filing to the IP Office, using a standard form. Proposal forms will be accepted through May 15, 2020.

Individuals may submit multiple proposal forms. However, due to limited funding, in the year 2020, the IP Office will consider their selections based on the actual demand (Patent applications which have been accepted as valid by the IP Office are preferred and will be considered on a first-come, first-served basis).

***

According to WIPO statistics for 2018, only eight PCT applications were filed through Vietnam’s IP Office, and only 22 PCT applications had Vietnam as the country of origin. These numbers are expected to rise as Vietnam’s economy and technological capacity continue to develop, and the IP Office is hoping the proactive support offered under the National Program for IP Asset Development, including the assistance offered under Official Letter 5360, will help spur this growth.

For further details on this program, please contact us at [email protected].

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