Revising IP Law to effectively combat infringements

After 10 years of implementing the Law and many sub-law documents issued to guide and support its implementation, organizations, individuals and businesses have become aware of IP rights and made use of these rights to create and protect their intellectual assets not only at home but abroad as well. Through these activities, businesses have gained a firm footing in the domestic and international markets.

The obvious evidence is that IP rights registration has become more and more popular. The number of IP rights registration applications has increased nearly 50 percent compared to the period before the enactment of the Law. At present, the number of applications for protection of IP rights filed by domestic businesses and foreign-invested enterprises operating in the country with the NOIP sees an annual growth of 10-15 percent. It can be said that businesses have so far heightened their sense of protecting their IP assets not only in the domestic market but also overseas.

The sense of building and protecting brands for local specialities, special farm produce and traditional craft villages has also been remarkably increased. This once again affirms the important role of IP in the protection of local brands. 

   

However, despite the fact that IP regulations have been widely disseminated among the public, the awareness about IP rights among the population in general and the business community in particular remains below expectations, leading to many IP rights infringements, both intentional and unintentional. Many businesses still delay or even neglect the registration of IP rights for their own products, thus giving rise to IP rights-related disputes.

Currently, IP rights enforcement activities are facing many problems. The IP rights enforcement function belongs to multiple state management agencies. This situation makes enterprises confused about which agency they should contact for help in exercising their IP rights.

In addition, as businesses tend to be afraid to go to court, they often knock on the doors of administrative agencies to seek protection of their rights. To some extent, the administrative settlement of IP rights infringements is swift and cost saving. But it creates a burden on state agencies so that the effectiveness is not high.

Another problem is that the processing of IP rights registration applications at the NOIP is still time-consuming and, as a result, there remain a great number of applications left unprocessed. There are several reasons behind this situation. First, the processes and procedures for assessing IP right registration applications have not yet been renovated. Second, reform of administrative procedures and simplification of processes related to the establishment of industrial property rights remain slow. Third, a number of regulations are unspecific and unclear, for example, those on registration of inventions of usage forms of pharmaceuticals. Fourth, human resources and facilities, especially information technology systems, serving the processing and appraisal of IP rights registration applications, are insufficient, failing to meet work requirements. And last but not least, the quality of support systems such as the industrial property representation system, remains poor.

Not only does Vietnam need to revise specific legal provisions but it has to change the structure of the legal system. Specifically, it is necessary to shift from administrative sanction to criminal punishment for a wide range of IP rights infringements.

In my opinion, in order to implement Vietnam’s commitments to FTAs and further foster the establishment, management and development of intellectual assets, the Law on Intellectual Property should be revised to address all existing shortcomings and limitations, some of which stem from the local culture and some are required by international commitments.

With a view to improving the effectiveness of the IP system, it is necessary to further build capacity for both state management agencies and IP rights enforcement bodies. In addition, socio-economic policies should be devised and implemented in a way that enable businesses to cope with negative impacts of strict IP protection requirements. Awareness of the public and the business cycle should be further raised so as to create a sound business environment where IP rights are respected for sustainable development.