You are using an outdated browser and your browsing experience will not be optimal. Please update to the latest version of Microsoft Edge, Google Chrome or Mozilla Firefox. Install Microsoft Edge

May 8, 2023

Practical Tips for Safe Use of Descriptive Terms in Vietnam

When a company promotes its products or services, it will naturally use laudatory terms or phrases to describe their quality. However, in Vietnam, such use could constitute trademark infringement, as many terms with a descriptive or laudatory nature have been granted registration as trademarks, often without disclaimers. Examples include “Nuoc Mam Me Lam” (“Fish sauce made by mom”) under Reg. No. 392575 for fish sauce, “Drink it, Wear it” under Reg. No. 387444 for clothing retail services, and “Making Cancer History” under Reg. No. 388177 for healthcare services.

Imagine a case where a hospital advertises that its cancer treatment services can help “make cancer history.” Would such advertisement be considered trademark infringement of the registered mark “Making Cancer History”?

Fair use or infringement?

Under the doctrine of descriptive fair use commonly adopted worldwide, a third party, even a direct competitor, may use another party’s descriptive trademark to describe its own products or services, even if such mark has acquired secondary meaning. However, that use can only be in a purely descriptive manner. Descriptive fair use requires that the mark being used actually describes a quality or attribute of the goods or services, rather than indicating the source. The descriptive words must also be used in the normal course of language. In addition, the mark must be used in the text portions of an advertisement and not as a banner or in any other manner that sets it apart from the other words in the sentence or paragraph in which it is used.

To be nominative fair use, such use should accurately refer to a trademark owner or to goods or services and cannot be misleading or defamatory, or imply endorsement or sponsorship by a trademark owner.

Vietnam does not have any detailed regulation on fair use of descriptive marks. However, the IP Law recognizes under Article 125 that owners of trademarks do not have the right to prevent others from “using in an honest manner people’s names or marks descriptive of the type, quantity, quality, utility, value, geographical origin or other properties of goods or services.” Therefore, it is understood that to safely use another party’s marks which are descriptive marks, such use should only be for descriptive purposes, to meet the criteria of honest and nominative fair use.

How to safely use a mark

It can be quite tricky to determine what is considered fair use. Sellers should not assume that any particular use of a trademark not belonging to them (that they do not have permission from the trademark owner to use) is acceptable under fair use. Below are some tips that may be helpful to eliminate such infringement risks when using descriptive marks.

Conduct trademark search before launching product

It is always a wise tactic to conduct a clearance search for any potential risk. Even if you do not intend to use such term as a mark, its presentation on product packages or signboards may be regarded as use of a trademark and, thus, an infringement risk.

Fair use

Make sure the term is used in a fair-use manner as described above. However, as the border between fair use and infringement may be very thin, it is recommended that the totality of the use is looked at, including the fonts used, the size of the text, and any other ways that the trademarked terms are used. For example, the hospital mentioned above may publish an advertisement such as:

ABC Cancer Center provides treatment and therapies that can help you control your symptoms and, furthermore, may help make cancer history with very little risk of recurrence.

This sentence uses the phrase “make cancer history” in a quite descriptive manner in the normal course of language to describe an attribute of the services being provided, without distinguishing or setting the descriptive phrase apart from the remainder of the advertisement.

However, the same advertisement may constitute trademark infringement of the registered “Making Cancer History” mark if presented as follows:

ABC Cancer Center provides treatment and therapies that can help you control your symptoms and, furthermore, may help in Making Cancer History.

The capitalization sets the trademarked words apart from the remainder of the advertisement and would not be descriptive fair use.

Earlier well-known status/wide use

A registered mark may be invalidated or banned from exercise if it conflicts with previously established trademark rights of others. Therefore, if you have used a term or phrase for a long period of time and it has acquired secondary meaning from your extensive use prior to the registration of the descriptive mark, you may have grounds in defending against a trademark infringement claim.

Genericness of the mark

You may also argue that the descriptive term has actually become generic and widely used by many other companies for similar products. Under the recently revised IP Law, a mark that has become generic after its registration can be invalidated.

Prior consent from the trademark owner

This action may safeguard your use, and infringement risk should be eliminated.

Other tips:

You may consider registering such descriptive terms as part of your own trademark to avoid worrying about infringement risk. For example, you can apply to register the package of a product as a trademark in which the descriptive element is only a part. In such case, the overall presentation of the mark will be protected and the descriptive element will likely be disclaimed; however, you can still use the overall product package.

The idiom “better safe than sorry” is a good reminder of the importance of looking carefully at any element appearing on the products before using it, even when it seems very obviously safe. With careful planning and wise tactics, the risk and loss can be avoided.

This article first appeared in Managing Intellectual Property.

RELATED INSIGHTS​ 

August 10, 2026
Thailand has finalized its social media KYC (“know your customer”) rules under Notification of the Electronic Transactions Commission on Measures to Prevent Technological Crimes for Social Media Service Providers (No. 2), which was published in the Government Gazette on May 5, 2026, and will take effect on November 1, 2026. While an early draft of the notification proposed requiring social media platforms to arrange identification of every user account, the final notification is significantly more targeted, focusing on paid online advertising and advertiser identity verification. Though the regulatory initiative primarily aims to combat online fraud and technology-related crimes, it also has important consequences for intellectual property enforcement, because the verified platform records that will be generated under the new requirements can help IP rights holders to identify anonymous online infringers. Key Regulatory Mandates The notification requires social media service providers to verify the identity of advertisers before their paid advertisements are published and disseminated in Thailand through social media, regardless of whether the advertising fees come from the advertisers or third parties. Verification of an advertiser is valid for one year, after which verification would have to be performed again before the platform could publish additional paid advertisements from the advertiser. Permitted verification methods are specified under the notification. A platform may verify an advertiser by checking identity evidence and confirming the connection between the advertiser and that identity evidence, with the notification giving facial comparison against certain government-issued identity documents as an example. Alternatively, platforms may verify advertisers through a digital identity verification and authentication system with an identity-proofing assurance level not lower than the level prescribed by Thailand’s Electronic Transactions Commission. The notification further requires platforms to retain only the advertiser’s information necessary to identify the advertiser, beginning from the start of the advertising activity and for
August 6, 2026
Introduction: A Trademark Paradox in Sustainable Packaging Walk into any Thai supermarket, and the label-free water bottle is no longer a novelty. Thailand’s packaging market, valued at approximately USD 15.68 billion in 2025, is shifting toward minimalist, plastic-light designs as ESG pressures reshape how brands present their products. The country generated roughly 5.68 million tons of plastic waste in 2021, with a recycling rate of only 19 percent, and regulators are now considering rules that would allow label-free bottled water relying on embossing, laser printing, or QR codes instead of wrap-around labels. As packaging itself becomes the brand identifier, a paradox emerges: designs built to say the least often struggle hardest for protection under Thai intellectual property law. The Trademark Barrier: When Shape Is Not Enough Section 7, paragraph 2(10) of the Thai Trademark Act deems a shape distinctive only if it is not the natural form of the goods, is not necessary to achieve a technical result, and does not add value to the goods. The Department of Intellectual Property’s 2022 examination guidelines apply this test conservatively, as the following examples illustrate. A plain water bottle relying on subtle contours to signal its brand is typically read as just another bottle, not a source identifier. Acquired distinctiveness offers a theoretical escape route, but it demands extensive evidence of sales, advertising, and consumer recognition—an especially heavy burden for new entrants whose minimalist packaging has not yet achieved market prominence. The result is a structural bias against precisely the design innovation that sustainability goals are meant to encourage. Design Patents: A Partial, Imperfect Substitute Design patent protection, covering a product’s shape, configuration, or ornamentation, appears to offer an alternative route. In practice, it is constrained by the same forces driving the minimalist trend. Because many brands converge on similar solutions—clear
August 4, 2026
Intellectual property (IP) protection sometimes hinges on fame and recognition. However, this alone will not always be sufficient to overcome an IP dispute when it involves contractual obligations or registered rights. Below are five cases from around the world that tackle some of the basic issues in IP registration, ownership, commercialization, and enforcement. 1. USA: Taylor Swift Trademark Application Refused Taylor Swift recently filed a trademark application to register “The Life of a Showgirl,” which is the title of her 12th studio album. When examining a trademark application, the examiner considers various factors before deciding whether it should be registered. One of these factors is whether there is a likelihood of confusion (i.e., would a regular consumer mistake the origin of the trademark). In Taylor Swift’s case, the US Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO) decided that that there would be a risk of confusion. This decision was based on the existing registered trademark, “Confessions of a Showgirl,” owned by Maren Wade, which was registered in 2015. The USPTO refused Taylor Swift’s application based on the shared key distinctive element “of a showgirl,” the lack of sufficient distinguishing terms, the marks being used in overlapping markets (entertainment and performances), and because consumers may assume a common commercial source. Maren Wade then filed a lawsuit in California against Taylor Swift and her affiliated companies, arguing that Taylor Swfit’s branding is confusingly similar in structure, wording, and overall commercial impression to her registered mark. She is also drawing on the USPTO’s refusal of Taylor Swift’s application to support her argument of a likelihood of confusion. A judgment has not yet been reached in this case, but it serves as an important reminder of the importance of satisfying the essential elements required for IP registration. 2. Australia: Katy Perry v. Katie Perry In
July 27, 2026
Vietnam’s new E-Commerce Law, which took effect on 1 July 2026 along with its implementing Decree No. 248/2026/ND-CP (Decree 248), marks a significant development in the country’s approach to online intellectual property (IP) enforcement, reflecting a clear shift from a reactive model of intermediary liability to one that expects platforms to play a more active role in preventing infringement. From notice-and-takedown to platform responsibility The most significant change introduced by the E-Commerce Law is the transformation of the legal role of e-commerce platforms. The existing safe harbor provisions under the IP Law and the copyright notice-and-takedown regime established by Decree 17/2023/ND-CP (Decree 17) largely required intermediaries to act only after receiving notice of infringement. Once infringing content had been removed, the platform’s legal obligation was generally considered fulfilled. The new legislation adopts a fundamentally different approach. Article 17 of the E-Commerce Law requires intermediary platforms to screen information relating to goods and services before publication in order to prevent listings involving counterfeit or IP-infringing goods, and goods of unknown origin. Rather than relying exclusively on complaints from rights holders, platforms are now expected to implement preventive measures before infringing listings become publicly available. Decree 248 further requires platforms to update keyword filters based on recommendations issued by competent authorities. These filtering mechanisms are intended to prevent prohibited listings from appearing on the platform and represent a further move away from a purely complaint-driven enforcement model. The legislation also introduces Vietnam’s first statutory stay-down obligation. Under the E-Commerce Law and Decree 248, major digital platforms must maintain automated systems capable of reviewing, warning against, and removing unlawful listings while also implementing measures to prevent repeat violations, defined under Decree 248 as conduct that has previously been identified and handled by the platform, but continues to recur. This obligation addresses one