Three legal documents—Law No. 131/2025/QH15, Decree No. 100/2026/NĐ-CP, and Circular No. 10/2026/TT-BKHCN—all effective on 1 April 2026, have introduced comprehensive amendments in the field of intellectual property (“IP”) in Vietnam.
The Law was issued on 10 December 2025, and we have already reported on its amendments. The following are some of the amendments introduced by the Decree and the Circular, both of which were just issued on 31 March 2026.
I. COMMON ISSUES
I.1. Promotion of commercialization of IP rights
It is the first time in Vietnam that, under Article 9d of the Decree, the Ministry of Science and Technology will establish a database of IP transaction prices, which:
(i) is a nationwide unified electronic data system on the value of lawful transactions related to IP rights, including assignment of ownership, licensing, mortgage, capital contribution, and other forms of commercial exploitation, and
(ii) includes information such as details of the transacting parties, type of transaction (assignment, licensing, mortgage, capital contribution, etc.), transaction price, etc.
This reflects Vietnam’s policy orientation toward encouraging IP rights holders to focus on the “asset” aspect of IP rights, in addition to the traditional aspect of IP rights protection.
I.2. Industrial property objects created with the use of artificial intelligence (“AI”) systems
Under Article 10a of the Decree, such inventions and industrial designs are eligible for protection only where humans have made a substantial contribution to the creation of such subject-matter (otherwise, the creator will still have the right to use and permit others to use them). The specific requirements for such contribution are provided in Article 10a.2 of the Decree as follows:
“2. A human shall be considered to have made a substantial contribution to the creation of an invention, industrial design, or layout design involving the use of an artificial intelligence system if the human performs all of the following activities:
(a) Identifying the problem to be solved, which must include an idea for the solution, rather than merely a general description of the problem;
(b) Selecting input data, objectives, constraints, and parameters based on the human’s creative ideas, rather than relying solely on available data or automated suggestions from the artificial intelligence system;
(c) Evaluating, selecting, refining, testing (if any), and interpreting the results generated by the artificial intelligence system, in which the refinement must alter the core structure or function of the results generated by the artificial intelligence system to create new value;
(d) Deciding on the final result constituting the invention, industrial design, or layout design for which protection is sought.”
Article 10a.1 of the Decree specifies that a person who makes a substantial contribution (as above) to the creation of an invention or industrial design through the use of an AI system shall be regarded as the inventor under Article 122.1 of the IP Law. Accordingly, the Article 10a.2 above (substantial contribution) should be given particular consideration when determining the inventor, since one of the grounds for invalidation of a granted invention patent or granted design patent is that the inventor does not meet the requirements set out in Article 122.1 of the IP Law.
According to Article 10a.4 of the Decree, trademarks created with the use of AI systems shall be protected if they satisfy the conditions prescribed under IP laws.
I.3. Reduction of certain time limits
As previously reported on the amendments to the IP Law, many statutory time limits for processing IP applications were shortened. The Circular has further shortened other statutory time limits. For example, the time for an applicant to respond to an office action regarding the substantive examination result of a design application has been shortened from three months to two months. The time limit for responding to a notice of intended refusal of a request for amendment and/or supplementation of an application has been shortened from two months to one month from the date of issuance of the notice. The time limit for payment of the grant fee has been reduced from three months to two months.
I.4. Removal of the decision on acceptance after formalities examination
Under the old law, when an application passes formalities examination, the Intellectual Property Office of Vietnam (“IPVN”) will issue a decision on acceptance. Under the new law, instead, on a weekly basis, the IPVN publishes on its online portal a list of applications to be published, specifying the application number, filing date, and publication assignment date of each application. It is understood that the publication assignment date is the date on which the application passes formalities examination.
This removal is reasonable because the decisions on acceptance do not carry significant substantive value, while both the IPVN and applicants spend time preparing, issuing, sending, and recording these communications.
I.5. Filing date of applications filed electronically
The Circular clearly specifies that where an application is filed through the electronic filing system after office hours or on weekends, public holidays, or Lunar New Year holidays as prescribed, the filing date shall be the next working day.
Since deadlines are always a critical issue, specific provisions like this are necessary.
I.6. Expedited substantive examination of invention applications or trademark applications
Under Article 14a of the Decree, with respect to patent applications or trademark applications, applicants may request expedited substantive examination (examination duration of three months) at the time of filing the applications if certain conditions are satisfied.
– Key conditions for patent applications include:
(i) the invention falls within the list of strategic technologies and strategic technology products in accordance with the laws on high technology (such as next-generation mobile network technology (5G/6G) – one of those listed in Decision No. 1131/QD-TTg dated 12 June 2025 issued by the Prime Minister), or the invention is researched (to be created) and exploited for emergency situations related to security, national defense, natural disasters, or epidemics; and
(ii) the invention has been commercially exploited.
While the two Patent Prosecution Highway (PPH) programs limit the number of PPH Requests that may be filed to a relatively small figure, the introduction of this fast-track examination mechanism demonstrates Vietnam’s efforts to promote the development of strategic technologies and strategic technology products.
– Key conditions for trademark applications include:
(i) The trademark is used for goods manufactured in accordance with an invention falling within the strategic list or for emergency situations relating to national security, defense, natural disasters, or epidemics
(ii) The certificate of trademark registration constitutes a mandatory document for the purpose of obtaining a license for manufacturing and/or business operations
(iii) The application must be filed directly with the state management authority in charge of industrial property rights (i.e., not an international application)
(iv) The trademark must not be a collective mark, a certification mark, a three-dimensional mark, or a sound mark; and
(v) All goods and/or services covered by the application must satisfy the conditions specified in items (i) and (ii) above.
Article 81 of the Circular further clearly stipulates that, where an application for trademark or patent registration requesting expedited substantive examination fails to meet the requirements, or where disputes, complaints, oppositions arise, or where the sign in the trademark application is identical with or confusingly similar to that in another application having an earlier filing date (including applications claiming priority) which has not yet been processed, such application shall be examined in accordance with the normal time line.
II. SPECIFIC INVENTION ISSUES
“First filing” has been replaced by “Foreign Filing License”. Under the old law, the first filing mechanism was used and Vietnam did not issue foreign filing licenses. Under the new law, the first filing mechanism has been removed and the foreign filing license mechanism has been introduced.
Accordingly, if an entity has an invention that falls within the list of State secrets in technical fields affecting national defense and security, which is created in Vietnam and for which the right to file belongs to an individual who is a Vietnamese citizen residing in Vietnam or an organization established under Vietnamese law, and intends to file an invention application abroad, it is required to submit a request for permission to file an invention application abroad to the Ministry of National Defense or the Ministry of Public Security.
In a straightforward case, within 30 days, the Ministry will issue a decision granting (foreign filing license) or refusing permission to file the invention application abroad.
However, the list of State secrets comprises a substantial body of documents that appears insufficiently specific for applicants to preliminarily determine whether their inventions fall within “technical fields affecting national defense and security,” and thus whether a request for permission to file an invention application abroad is required. It is hoped that more detailed implementing guidance will be issued so that this procedure does not become an unduly burdensome and time-consuming requirement for applicants.
III. SPECIFIC DESIGN ISSUES
According to the recent amendments, Vietnam has begun providing protection for partial designs and designs of non-physical products. From the Circular and Article 76 of the Decree concerning elements constituting infringement of industrial design rights, several points can be inferred regarding these two new issues.
With respect to partial designs:
– In determining infringement, the positional similarity of the concerned part and the proportional similarity of that part relative to the overall product will be taken into account. The part subject to infringement assessment may be a separable part (i.e., a component of a complex product) or a non-separable part (i.e., a part that can only be separated by destroying the product). Also, the products must be of the same type; products of different types will not be assessed.
– A partial design may be represented in different ways: (i) the claimed portion is shown in solid lines and the unclaimed portion is shown in broken lines, (ii) the claimed portion is shown in a color that contrasts with the unclaimed portion, etc.
With respect to non-physical products:
– Article 46.2(b) of the Decree provides a definition of non-physical products: “Non-physical products are objects that do not exist in a tangible material form, which are created through the projection or display of a design onto a surface or into an environment (including air) and have practical functions to operate, interact, or perform specific tasks.”
– Whether a product is physical or non-physical, both may be considered products of the same type during application examination and infringement assessment.
– The appearance-forming features of a design of a non-physical product consist of shape, color, layout arrangement, proportional relationships, display sequence, and visual effects of graphical elements (whereas the appearance-forming features of a design of a physical product consist of lines, three-dimensional shape, colors, positional relationships, or dimensional relationships). Information content displayed within a non-physical product that changes depending on the user (such as text, numerical data, etc.) is not regarded as essential appearance-forming features.
– Specific types of industrial designs of non-physical products are also specified in Article 46.4(l): “Photos or drawings must show the industrial design in the same selected state of use; photos or drawings showing other states may be provided to clarify the nature of the industrial design. Where the industrial design of a non-physical product involves changes in shape or movement, such effects may be illustrated by a sequence of successive images, each image in the sequence showing a consecutive state of the transformation process.”
From the foregoing, it can be seen that, at the international level, the scope of subject-matter eligible for industrial design protection under these amendments is relatively broad. Nevertheless, typefaces remain ineligible for protection in Vietnam.
IV. SPECIFIC TRADEMARK ISSUES
IV.1. Evidence of the right to use an individual’s image for trademark registration
The Circular introduces additional provisions under Article 68, specifically Clause 8 thereof, on documents evidencing the right to use an individual’s image for trademark registration, thereby addressing current practice where applicants use personal images in trademark applications. This provision is consistent with Article 32.1 of the 2015 Civil Code, which provides that “an individual has rights over his/her image”; accordingly, the use of an individual’s image must be subject to that person’s consent, and the use of another person’s image for commercial purposes requires the payment of remuneration to such person, unless otherwise agreed by the parties.
Notably, even where the applicant intends to use his/her own image as a trademark, it is still required to submit identification documents bearing such image as supporting evidence. However, the Circular also provides flexibility by allowing the omission of the aforementioned identification documents where the IPVN is able to access the individual’s image and information from the National Population Database.
IV.2. Provisions on “Disclaimer”
IV.2.1. Updates on disclaimer provisions
With respect to disclaimers, Article 69.3(d) of the Circular provides that: “The applicant may voluntarily disclaim one or more elements of the trademark specimen for which no exclusive protection is sought.” Where the applicant fails to disclaim, or provides an unjustified disclaimer of elements that lack inherent distinctiveness at the time of filing, during the stage of substantive examination, the IPVN shall issue a notice of substantive examination results, clearly indicating such elements, and shall set a time limit of two months from the date of issuance of the notice for the applicant to submit written opinions. Where the applicant proactively amends or supplements the application, after the filing date, to disclaim exclusive protection for certain elements of the trademark specimen, such disclaimer must be clearly indicated in the amendment request.
For Madrid applications designating Vietnam, where the trademark contains elements subject to disclaimer but the applicant has neither indicated such disclaimer in the application nor done so appropriately, prior to the expiry of the 12-month time limit prescribed in Article 91.1 of the Circular, the IPVN shall issue a provisional refusal and notify the International Bureau accordingly.
The introduction of provisions on “Disclaimer” constitutes a progressive development, enabling applicants to proactively identify and declare elements subject to disclaimer, in line with current practices in certain jurisdictions. Where the disclaimer determined by the applicant is deemed appropriate, the IPVN will not need to issue any notification in this respect, thereby shortening the processing time of the application.
IV.2.2. Presentation of names and addresses of foreign applicants
In addition, Point (d) of this Article is supplemented to provide that, where the applicant is a foreign individual or a foreign organization, the name and address must be presented in Latin characters in accordance with the international form of the original name, without translation into or transliteration in Vietnamese. This provision aims to address practical shortcomings and align with international practice: foreign applicants often translate their names and addresses into Vietnamese (e.g., “Beijing” is translated as “Bắc Kinh”, etc.), which may give rise to complications during examination, particularly in relation to cited marks (e.g., whether they belong to the same owner when the addresses are presented inconsistently).
IV.3. Assessment of the distinctiveness of signs indicated in the application
With respect to trademarks composed of two syllables, Article 76 of the Circular has been amended to provide greater clarity on this matter. Specifically, under the previous provisions, it was in practice difficult to determine what constitutes “two letters not pronounceable as a word.” Under the new provisions, this has been revised to “two letters that cannot be pronounced as a single syllable (in Vietnamese) or do not constitute a word in other commonly used languages (e.g., English, French)” shall be considered lacking inherent distinctiveness. This amendment provides clearer guidance on when a trademark composed of two syllables satisfies the requirement of inherent distinctiveness.
With respect to sound marks, Clauses 3 and 4 have been added to Article 76 to provide criteria for assessing the distinctiveness of sound signs as follows:
3. Assessment of the distinctiveness of sound signs
The distinctiveness of sound signs shall be assessed as follows:
Except for the cases provided for in Clause 5 of this Article, a sound sign shall be considered devoid of distinctiveness if:
(a) It is a common or widely used sound for the relevant goods or services, or within the production or business sector related to such goods or services, and has become familiar to the relevant public;
(b) It contains excessively complex melodies or timbres, or is excessively long, such that it cannot be perceived or memorized;
(c) It is too short and simple, consisting of only one or two musical notes;
(d) It conveys descriptive content of the goods or services bearing the mark, such as indications of time, place, method of production, category, quantity, quality, characteristics, composition, functions, value, or other characteristics of the goods or services;
(đ) It conveys descriptive content indicating the geographical origin of the goods or services;
(e) It conveys descriptive content relating to the legal form or the field of business.
4. Where a sound mark contains linguistic elements, such linguistic content shall be assessed for distinctiveness in a manner analogous to the assessment of word marks as provided for in Clause 1 of this Article.
Accordingly, a sound mark must satisfy the same distinctiveness criteria as other types of trademarks—namely, it must be capable of indicating the commercial origin of the goods/services and be perceived by the relevant public as an indication of origin, rather than merely a descriptive or ordinary sound. Therefore, the criteria for assessing the distinctiveness of sound signs largely correspond to those applicable to word marks and figurative marks.
IV.4. Non-assignability of industrial property rights where the title of protection has been terminated, invalidated, or has expired
Article 115.6 of the Circular introduces provisions on the handling of applications for registration of assignment contracts of industrial property rights. Where the title of protection subject to the assignment has been terminated, invalidated, or has expired in accordance with the law, the IPVN shall issue a decision refusing registration of the assignment contract. This provision clarifies that only valid titles of protection may be assigned, thereby preventing invalid transactions from the outset, enhancing transparency, protecting assignees, and ensuring legal certainty in industrial property transactions.
IV.5. Supplementation of provisions on amendment of titles of protection
Under the new provisions set out in Article 110 of the Circular, a mechanism has been introduced to suspend the processing of requests for amendment of titles of protection upon request from a competent authority or where the industrial property right is being used as secured collateral, thereby ensuring compliance with relevant legal procedures. At the same time, for the first time, the procedure for withdrawal of requests for amendment is clearly and transparently stipulated, in a manner similar to other withdrawal procedures, and reinstatement is not permitted once a valid withdrawal has been effected.
In addition, the term “re-issuance of the title of protection” has been revised to “re-publication of the title of protection” in cases where errors are identified, in order to avoid confusion between the procedures of the IPVN and those of the Departments of Science and Technology. These changes contribute to enhancing transparency, standardizing procedures, and reducing legal risks for enterprises in the management of industrial property rights.
IV.6. Registration of geographical indications
IV.6.1. Supplementation of requirements for geographical indication applications
Pursuant to Article 94.6 of the Circular, the new provisions clarify the terminology for determining the requirements and standards applicable to laboratories, testing centers, and analytical facilities that provide testing and analysis results on the physical, chemical, and biological characteristics of products bearing geographical indications. These provisions reflect a trend toward raising the standard of scientific evidence in geographical indication applications, requiring that analytical results be issued by accredited testing organizations within their recognized technical scope. At the same time, the flexible mechanism permitting the use of data from non-accredited sources, subject to the submission of a rigorous and well-substantiated explanation, reflects a balanced approach between strict evidentiary requirements and practical feasibility.
IV.6.2. Assessment of eligibility for protection of geographical indications
New provisions under Article 101.1 of the Circular set out the assessment of eligibility for protection of geographical indications. Depending on the complexity of assessing the criteria specified in Point (a) of this Clause, the IPVN may seek opinions from independent experts, consult the Geographical Indications Advisory Council, or conduct additional surveys. The involvement of independent experts or an advisory council, together with on-site surveys, enables the IPVN to obtain additional information not clearly reflected in the application dossier, or to verify and clarify such information, thereby ensuring a more accurate and comprehensive assessment of the conditions for protection.
IV.6.3. Handling of homonymous geographical indications
With respect to homonymous geographical indications, new provisions under Article 101.3 provide a basis for ensuring their distinguishability. The scope is expanded to cover not only registered geographical indications but also pending applications, allowing conflicts to be addressed at an early stage. A two-way consultation mechanism between the applicant and the holder of existing geographical indications facilitates a more objective and comprehensive assessment of distinctiveness. Overall, these provisions enhance transparency, coordination, and the quality of examination in cases involving homonymous geographical indications.
V. SPECIFIC ENFORCEMENT ISSUES
V.1. Database on protection of IP rights
While Article 11 of the Decree focuses on establishing a solid legal framework for the national database on industrial property rights, Article 133 of the Circular specifies activities to assure information on industrial property rights, assigning key tasks to the IPVN, including infrastructure development, construction and operation, dissemination, and training. Specifically, the IPVN will directly operate two highly applicable databases: the database on transaction prices of IP rights and the database on the protection of IP rights.
The database on the protection of IP rights will include data about:
(i) Disputes and infringements of IP rights that have been handled
(ii) Type of IP rights that have been infringed
(iii) Settlements, status of enforcement of the final decisions
(iv) Relevant information during the handling process (if any), and
(v) Information on IP protection agencies.
The establishment of a centralized database aims to collect, standardize, manage, and utilize information to support monitoring, assistance, and coordination efforts, thereby contributing to improved efficiency in handling infringements and protecting IP rights.
V.2. Automating the process and works of IP rights protection
Article 12 of the Decree marks a significant milestone by introducing regulations on the application of technology in detecting, monitoring, and handling infringement activities, specifically:
(i) Automated detection, surveillance, and monitoring of IP rights infringements in cyberspace;
(ii) Handling IP rights infringements in cyberspace within authorized powers, including requesting the removal of infringing content and the suspension or restriction of infringing accounts.
This regulation reflects the digital transformation trend in law enforcement, while establishing a legal foundation for applying artificial intelligence and big data in IP rights protection – a field that demands rapid detection and response to increasingly sophisticated and growing infringements in the digital environment. Notably, the new cooperation mechanism for foreign-related cases will help resolve bottlenecks in transnational infringement cases, ensuring the rights and interests of IP right holders.
V.3. Forced distribution or use for non-commercial purposes
Article 37 of the Decree has amended regulations on the forced distribution or non-commercial use of counterfeit goods in term of marks, counterfeit goods in term of geographical indications, and goods infringing industrial property rights and rights to plant varieties, clearly differentiating between the two.
While Decree No. 65/2023/ND-CP (which was amended by said Decree No. 100/2026/NĐ-CP) stipulated general conditions for all the aforementioned subjects, the Decree (Decree No. 100/2026/ND-CP) divided the conditions into separate ones for two types of subjects, specifically:
(i) Counterfeit goods in term of marks (Clause 1)
(ii) Others including counterfeit goods in term of geographical indications, and goods infringing industrial property rights and rights to plant varieties (Clause 2)
In addition to the general conditions applicable to Group (ii), counterfeit goods in term of marks may only be distributed if their destruction would harm the environment or affect public health. This regulation has tightened the handling of counterfeit goods in term of marks, whereby destruction is mandatory if the harm to the environment or public health caused by such destruction cannot be proven; distribution is only a special exception when destruction is determined to be more harmful to the public interest than beneficial to the protection of industrial property rights.
V.4. Authorization
As previously reported, the amendments to the IP Law introduced the provision: “If a power of attorney does not specify a term of authorization, the term of authorization shall be determined in accordance with the provisions of the Civil Code. In the event that either the authorizing party or the authorized party unilaterally terminates the authorization, a written declaration on the termination of the authorization must be submitted.”
Accordingly, as a power of attorney is a written document submitted, to terminate such authorization, a written document is required to be filed.
Also, Article 140.2 of the Civil Code is as follows.
“2. Where the time limit of representation cannot be determined in accordance with Clause 1 of this Article, the time limit of representation shall be determined as follows:
a) If the representative authority is established in relation to a specific civil transaction, the duration of representation shall last until the termination of that civil transaction;
b) If the representative authority is not established in relation to a specific civil transaction, the duration of representation shall be one year from the time the representative authority arises.”
Article 8.6 of the Circular has provided provisions on common cases:
“In the case where a power of attorney clearly states that the authorization shall terminate only when either party issues a written declaration of termination or when another power of attorney is issued to replace it, such power of attorney shall be deemed to contain a provision on its term in accordance with Point c, Clause 2, Article 107 of the Law on Intellectual Property.”
Accordingly, if a power of attorney contains either of said two contents, it is considered as specifying a term of authorization.
V.5. Invalidation of trademark registration certificate
Article 111 of the Circular introduces several new provisions regarding the invalidation of trademark registration certificate, specifically:
(i) Cases that are not considered trademark use: This provision is a notable new development, aimed at removing obstacles in the examination of evidence of use submitted to overcome non-use invalidation actions. In practice, many such submissions have been merely formalistic or defensive in nature and do not genuinely reflect the actual commercial exploitation of the goods or services concerned.
(ii) The number of invalidation requests in the invalidation request form: While Decree No. 65/2023/ND-CP previously allowed one request for invalidation against one or more registrations if they have the same arguments, the new regulation restricts each request only applies for one invalidation against one trademark registration.
(iii) Procedures and timeframe for processing the invalidation request: The procedures and timeframe for processing the invalidation request have also been clarified and amended compared to Decree No. 65/2023/ND-CP. Notably, deadline for the owner of trademark to respond to IPVN’s notice on invalidation is one month.
(iv) Terminating the process: The Circular also shows progress in avoiding duplicate and unnecessary processing of the same subject matter, namely:“IPVN shall terminate the processing of invalidation request, in whole or in part, in cases where the trademark registration certificate subject to the invalidation request has been wholly or partially invalidated by a decision of the IP Vietnam (or by a legally effective judgment or decision of the Court).”
V.6. Cancellation of trademark registration certificate
Article 112 of the Circular introduces several new provisions regarding the cancellation of trademark registration certificate, specifically:
(i) Bad faith: The additional regulations
a) The applicant applies a large number of trademarks that are identical or similar to the point of being indistinguishable from trademarks already used by others in Vietnam for identical or similar goods or services, and this application exceeds the applicant’s normal business capacity and there is no evidence showing a genuine intention to use these trademarks in production or business activities
or
(b) At the time of filing, the applied mark is identical with or confusingly similar to a mark that has been recognized by relevant consumers in Vietnam as a sign of commercial origin for identical or similar goods or services of another person or the applied mark is identical with or confusingly similar to a well-known mark in other countries.
are suitable to practice, addressing the disadvantage of Circular No. 23/2023/TT-BKHCN (which was replaced by said Circular No. 10/2026/TT-BKHCN), which previously required proof that, at the time of filing, the applicant knew or had reasonable grounds to know that the applied-for mark was identical or confusingly similar to a mark widely used in Vietnam or a well-known mark in other countries for identical or similar goods or services.
(ii) The number of cancellation requests in the cancellation request form: While Decree No. 65/2023/ND-CP previously allowed one request for cancellation against one or more registrations if they have the same arguments, the new regulation restricts each request only applies for one cancellation against one trademark registration.
(iii) Procedures and timeframe for processing the cancellation request: The procedures and timeframe for processing the cancellation request have also been clarified and significantly shortened compared to Decree No. 65/2023/ND-CP. This amendment is suitable to the current practice, as the IPVN is accelerating the examination of applications and aims to prevent the prolonged process periods that occurred in the past.
(iv) Terminating the process: Similar to the non-use invalidation procedure, the Circular reflects progress in avoiding duplicative and unnecessary proceedings in respect of the same subject matter.
V.7. Regulations related to appeal settlement
(i) Subjects of appeal
The new regulations in Article 116 of the Circular have omitted some subjects of appeal, specifically:
– Decision on the formality acceptance of the application
– Decision on the refusal of the formality acceptance of the application
– Decision on the granting of a duplicate copy of the protection title, decision on the re-issuance of the protection title; decision on the refusal of the grant of a duplicate copy of the protection title, decision on the refusal of the re-issuance of the protection title
– Administrative decisions related to the industrial property representative and industrial property assessment.
– Decision on the settlement of the appeal for the first time of IPVN.
The omission of two decisions regarding the formality acceptance aims to ensure consistency with the current regulations of the IP Law. Meanwhile, the procedures for issuing duplicates, reissuing protection titles, industrial property representative, and industrial property assessmentare no longer under the jurisdiction of the IPVN but are delegated to the provincial People’s Committees. The decision on the settlement of the appeal for the first time is also no longer subject to appeal as stipulated in Article 116, ensuring consistency with current practices of appeal settlement in the field of industrial property.
Furthermore, while Circular No. 23/2023/TT-BKHCN only generally stipulates that administrative decisions related to industrial property right transfer procedures are subject to complaints, the Circular (Circular No. 10/2026/TT-BKHCN) clarifies these decisions, including:
– Assignment of industrial property rights: Decision on the recordal of the assignment of the IP right, decision on the refusal of the registration of an industrial property right assignment contract
– Licensing of subject matters of industrial property: Decision on the recordal of the licensing of subject matter of industrial property right, decision on the refusal of the registration of the contract for licensing of subject matter of industrial property right
(ii) Reinstating the examination process after the settlement of the appeal
The Circular adds a new regulation in Article 119.8, stating that, “In cases where the settlement of the appeal leads to the amendment, supplementation, or cancellation of part or all of an administrative decision, the Intellectual Property Office of Vietnam shall reinstate the examination process of the relevant application to carry out the remaining procedures in accordance with the settlement of the appeal.”
This new regulation creates a closed process flow, in which the IPVN is responsible for proactively reinstating the examination work after the appeal procedure has been completed, carrying out the remaining procedures in accordance with the settlement, minimizing delays, and ensuring the legitimate rights of the applicant.
By Nguyen Duc Thang and Nguyen Trong Tu
