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

In other news, Ericsson sought a declaratory judgment against Acer and Netflix filed a cease-and-desist letter against ByteDance over AI misuse
As trade secret filings rise due to AI development and economic espionage concerns, firms are relying on proactive counselling to help clients navigate disputes
IP firm leaders share why they remain positive in the face of falling patent applications from US filers, and how they are meeting a rising demand from China
The power of DEI to swing IP pitches is welcome, but why does it have to be left so late?
Mathew Lucas has joined Pearce IP after spending more than 25 years at Qantm IP-owned firm Davies Collison Cave
Exclusive survey data reveals a generally lax in-house attitude towards DEI, but pitches have been known to turn on a final diversity question
Managing IP will host a ceremony in London on May 1 to reveal the winners
Abigail Wise shares her unusual pathway into the profession, from failing A-levels to becoming Lewis Silkin’s first female IP partner
There are some impressive AI tools available for trademark lawyers, but law firm leaders say humans can still outthink the bots
Lawyers at Simmons & Simmons look ahead to a UK Supreme Court hearing in which the court will consider whether English courts can determine FRAND terms when the licence is offered by an intermediary rather than an SEP owner
Gift this article