Short answer: A partial refusal does not force a choice between the two remedies: dividing the application while appealing is a lawful and usually optimal strategy. The clean goods are split out and granted early for market launch, while the refused part is fought through the complaint to win it back — the two procedures run on two different files and do not cancel each other out, provided the divided specifications do not overlap.
Legal basis
Division of an industrial property application is governed by Decree No. 65/2023/ND-CP (the divided application keeps the parent filing and priority dates and must be requested before the final decision), while a complaint against a refusal follows Complaint Law No. 02/2011/QH13 and is the prelude to an administrative lawsuit under Law No. 93/2015/QH13. No rule prohibits pursuing both procedures simultaneously for different parts of the same parent application.
How this applies in practice
The logic of the parallel strategy is separating ‘speed’ from ‘dispute’: revenue from the clean goods should not be held hostage by a legal argument that can run one to two years. Meanwhile the complaint over the refused part proceeds with full evidence (real use, agreements with the cited owner) and no launch-deadline pressure. If the complaint wins, the company reunites its original protection scope; if it loses, the divided part remains safe and a corrected fresh filing for the lost part is still available.
The technical conditions for the tracks not to sabotage each other: the divided specification and the complained part must be cleanly separated; the complaint’s arguments must not contradict positions accepted in the divided file (you cannot accept a disclaimer in one and deny needing it in the other); and both procedures’ deadlines must be run from a single compliance calendar. This is why one single IP representative should coordinate the whole strategy.
Action checklist
- Split the specification into two decisive groups: clean goods for division, refused goods for the complaint.
- File the division request immediately, before any final decision touching the clean part.
- File the complaint for the remainder within its deadline, with a long-game evidence strategy.
- Synchronise the legal messaging across both files to avoid contradictory arguments.
- When the complaint concludes, decide whether to reunite the scope or file a supplementary application for the missing part.
Risks and practical notes
The greatest risk is deadline management: two parallel procedures double the dates to track, and missing the complaint deadline while busy with the division is a mistake that really happens in practice. The second risk is cost: parallel means paying on both fronts — value the refused part honestly and decide whether it merits a long complaint, or should be cut early to concentrate resources on the clean part.
Frequently asked questions
Can you divide and appeal simultaneously after a partial refusal?
Yes. The two procedures apply to different parts of the parent application’s goods; nothing prohibits pursuing both at once, provided the divided specifications are clean and non-overlapping.
Which route gets my goods to market fastest?
Divide the unrefused goods into their own application for an early grant while complaining over the rest — clean products do not have to wait for the dispute.
Do the two procedures affect each other?
They interact on arguments and deadlines: complaint reasoning must stay consistent with the divided scope, and both deadline sets must be managed together — a single coordinating representative reduces this risk.
This article has been quality-reviewed by the FLAW AI Legal Council