Industrial design protection for Locarno Class 32: a new era in Vietnam

Managing IP is part of Legal Benchmarking Limited, 1-2 Paris Gardens, London, SE1 8ND

Copyright © Legal Benchmarking Limited and its affiliated companies 2026

Accessibility | Terms of Use | Privacy Policy | Modern Slavery Statement

Industrial design protection for Locarno Class 32: a new era in Vietnam

Sponsored by

tillekegibbins.png
Statue of Ho Chi Minh

Thanh Phuong Vu of Tilleke & Gibbins explains how Vietnam’s 2025 Intellectual Property Law amendment introduces protection for partial and intangible designs under Locarno Class 32

Vietnam’s Intellectual Property Law (the IP Law), despite being amended in 2022, underwent another significant revision at the end of 2025. The latest amendment aimed to address five major policy objectives set by the Vietnamese government, including promoting innovation, digital transformation, and international integration.

Among the most notable changes in the 2025 IP Law, which takes effect on April 1 2026, is the expansion of industrial design protection under Article 4.13. The revised definition now includes partial designs and intangible designs, marking a transformative shift in Vietnam’s industrial design regime.

This change has particularly significant implications for designs under Class 32 of the Locarno Classification, which covers graphic designs, logos, ornamentation, surface patterns, arrangements, and other intangible products. These designs, previously excluded from protection in Vietnam, are now recognised under the new legal framework.

Background: status of Class 32 designs before 2026

The Intellectual Property Office of Vietnam (the IP Office) currently applies the 13th edition of the Locarno Classification for industrial design filings. However, not all classes in this system have historically been eligible for protection. Under the 2022 IP Law, Class 32 designs were explicitly excluded based on the following legal grounds:

  • Definition under Article 4.13 of the 2022 IP Law – “An industrial design is the external appearance of a product or a component for assembly into a complex product, expressed in shapes, lines, colours, or a combination thereof, and visible during the exploitation of the product’s utility or the complex product.”

  • Product requirements under Article 21.2 of Circular 23/2023/TT-BKHCN – a product is defined as an object, a tool, a device, or means, manufactured by industrial or handicraft methods, with clear structure and function. A component for assembly into a complex product must be capable of independent circulation and detachable from the complex product.

Based on these definitions, Class 32 designs, such as graphical user interfaces (GUIs), were excluded because they could only circulate with the devices with which they were associated. Applications for such designs were thus typically rejected during the formality examination stage, prior to publication.

In earlier years, when the exclusion of intangible designs was not clearly defined, applicants often attempted to modify their filings to fit eligible categories. For example:

  • A logo design (Class 32) could be reclassified as a label design (Class 19); and

  • An ornamental pattern (Class 32) could be converted into a decorative material sheet (Class 11).

However, the IP Office later prohibited such practices by rejecting priority claims due to subject-matter change and rejecting amendments that changed the nature of the original design.

The rationale for excluding intangible designs was never explicitly stated, but some opinions attributed it to practical difficulties in identifying, examining, and enforcing rights for such designs.

The 2025 amendment: a paradigm shift

Under the amended 2025 IP Law, Article 4.13 introduces a broader definition: “An industrial design is the external appearance of the whole or a part of a physical or non-physical product, expressed in shapes, lines, colours, or a combination thereof, and visible during the exploitation of the product’s utility [emphasis added].”

This change expands protection to:

  • Partial designs (inseparable parts of products); and

  • Intangible designs (e.g., GUIs, digital patterns, virtual objects).

This amendment represents a major evolution in Vietnam’s industrial design protection system, driven by the objectives of:

  • Adaptation to technological advancements, particularly the rise of digital and electronic products;

  • Alignment with global trends in industrial design protection; and

  • Enhanced applicant rights and incentives for creativity in design innovation.

While the expansion will undoubtedly create challenges in drafting guidelines, examination procedures, enforcement, and dispute resolution, it is considered a necessary step to meet the government’s policy goals and respond to the rapid pace of societal and technological change.

Outlook

The inclusion of Class 32 designs under Vietnam’s IP Law marks a significant milestone, opening the door for the protection of intangible designs such as GUIs, logos, and digital patterns. This progressive move not only harmonises Vietnam’s IP framework with international standards but also fosters innovation in the digital economy.

As implementation unfolds, design applicants can file and obtain protection for their partial designs and Class 32 designs in Vietnam. Moreover, refusals of such designs filed internationally under the Hague Agreement Concerning the International Registration of Industrial Designs should no longer pose an issue.

more from across site and SHARED ros bottom lb

More from across our site

VO, which has offices in the Netherlands, Belgium and Germany, is the second European IP firm to secure external backing this week
The Bardehle Pagenberg attorneys-at-law discuss the firm’s Managing IP EMEA Awards 2026 success, Unified Patent Court litigation strategy, and evolving European patent trends
A patent battle between two legal tech companies and a loss for Elon Musk’s xAI against OpenAI were also among the top talking points
With drug prices a hot topic in the US, courts are seemingly more reluctant to prevent the entry of generics to the market
Academic Eden Sarid joins us during Pride Month to discuss queer expression and IP law, Patagonia v Pattie Gonia, and how queer and AI-generated creations both pose novelty concerns
Patent attorney Michael Henson joins the firm to lead its freshly launched blockchain and digital assets practice
A dispute over mammogram technology, and a development in the case between GSK and Moderna were also among the top talking points in recent weeks
With rankings for Western Europe set to be published on June 25, we sat down with our research lead to find out what practitioners and law firms can expect
Peter O’Sullivan, a professional services executive, says he is looking forward to helping Pearce IP become the leading life sciences firm in Australia and New Zealand
Matteo Di Lernia, advocate at LCA Studio Legale, unpicks the CJEU’s ruling in M.M. Ristorazione v Villa Ramazzini, including its impact on litigation strategies
Gift this article