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

February 21, 2017

3D Trademarks in Vietnam: Multiple Dimensions of Uncertainty

Subscribe to Updates
Informed Counsel

Under Vietnam’s Intellectual Property Law, three-dimensional trademarks are registrable, with the same criteria for protection as two-dimensional marks. However, a sense of confusion is inevitable when looking at the overall picture of 3D mark registration in Vietnam.

The NOIP’s View on Inherent Distinctiveness

The National Office of Intellectual Property (NOIP) has recently taken the stance that 3D marks without distinctive word/device/color elements are not inherently distinctive. Such 3D marks are usually refused protection on the grounds either that they are descriptive of the products, even if the 3D shapes are unique and nonfunctional, or that they are the common shapes of the products and are therefore generic. If a mark is considered descriptive, it can only be registered if it has obtained secondary meaning through use. If it is considered generic, it is not registrable, strictly speaking, even with evidence of use. However, there is a fine line between descriptive and generic in Vietnam. In many cases, even if a 3D mark is refused for being generic, it can be registered if the owner can prove that the 3D shape has obtained secondary meaning.

To prove secondary meaning, evidence of use of the mark in Vietnam (before the filing date) is the most influential factor. Evidence of use in other countries is considered, but carries less weight. The NOIP has sole discretion in deciding whether the evidence is sufficient to prove secondary meaning, and its examiners’ rulings tend to be subjective. For example, if a particular shape of bottle is commonly found in the market—even if this is the result of a 3D mark being widely counterfeited—the examiner may view this as evidence that the mark is nondistinctive because it is merely the common shape of the product.

But trademark owners can also meet with positive outcomes. For example, the NOIP recently granted protection to Cartier’s famous “Red Box” 3D mark based on intensive evidence of use of the mark in Vietnam and around the world.

Different Division, Different Practice

Setting aside the issues of prior rights, it can be difficult to understand why some marks are granted protection, while others are refused. For example, a search for 3D marks in the NOIP and WIPO online databases identifies four different bottles of spirits, each with curves and patterns contributing to what would appear to be similarly distinctive designs. Yet two of these bottles were granted protection as 3D marks, while two were refused. In fact, two of the marks—one approved, one rejected—belong to the same owner, a famous European whiskey brand.

The chief difference in these cases, then, does not appear to be one of distinctiveness, but rather that the two refused marks were extended to Vietnam under the Madrid Protocol, while the two approved marks were filed as national applications. In fact, one may find that 3D marks filed through the Madrid system are rarely granted protection, while 3D marks filed as national applications are more commonly approved.

The reason lies in the different practices of the examiners. Currently, international registrations designating Vietnam are examined by the geographical indication (GI) division, while national applications are examined by the trademark division. Examiners in these divisions hold different views on 3D marks. Specifically, examiners in the trademark division often approve protection for 3D marks that combine a distinctive element (word or device) and a product shape, but require the 3D shape to be disclaimed. Conversely, examiners at the GI division often refuse such marks, as they hold the view that for 3D marks, the 3D device is the single most important element, and if the 3D device (the shape) is not distinctive, then the mark should not be protected, because the purpose of protecting a 3D mark is lost if the mark is protected as a whole but the 3D shape is disclaimed. Unlike national applications (where the NOIP has sole discretion over disclaimers), for international registrations, the NOIP cannot by itself disclaim a certain element of a mark, unless the applicant voluntarily and clearly indicates a disclaimer in the international registration. Without the ability to add a disclaimer, the NOIP opts to simply refuse these marks.

Confusing Scope of Protection

Taking a closer look at some of the 3D marks that have been granted protection, one might wonder what exactly is being protected in these marks, since the 3D shapes, word elements, and devices are all disclaimed. The answer, of course, is that it is the combination of these elements that is protected. Or, in other words, the protection of such marks is only useful against counterfeiting where the counterfeit goods copy the exact shape and all the word/drawing/color elements on that shape. If a counterfeiter copies the shape only, in principle, that is not considered trademark infringement, as the shape is not separately protected.

Despite the inconsistencies and shortcomings discussed above, trademark owners are advised to pursue 3D mark registration if they seek protection of a 3D mark in its entirety. Additionally, they should opt for national trademark filing for a better chance of success. Though the current practice may not protect 3D marks to the extent owners desire, a certificate of registration will always be a plus for enforcement purposes, as the enforcement authorities usually request such documents before taking any actions.

Download Full Article
Related Professionals

Practices

Intellectual Property

Location

RELATED INSIGHTS​ 

October 3, 2025
In Thailand, the rise in online intellectual property infringement has prompted authorities to strengthen enforcement efforts, including the use of website-blocking orders under Section 20(3) of the Computer Crime Act B.E. 2560 (2017) (CCA). This provision authorizes the Ministry of Digital Economy and Society (MDES), with court approval, to block or remove computer data that constitutes a criminal offence under IP law. Since its implementation, the procedure has undergone several developments, which is an encouraging sign of progress. Website-blocking procedure In practice, website-blocking orders under Section 20(3) of the CCA are primarily used for copyright and trademark infringement. While such orders are legally applicable to patent infringement, their use remains challenging due to the difficulty of proving infringement through administrative procedures. The website-blocking procedure begins when an IP owner identifies online infringing content. For copyright infringement, which is considered a compoundable offence, the IP owner is required to first file a police report with the specialized police unit known as the Economic Crime Suppression Division (ECD) prior to filing the website-blocking application with the Department of Intellectual Property (DIP). For trademark infringement cases, the application can be filed directly with the DIP without a prior police report. The DIP reviews the evidence and, if infringement is confirmed, forwards it to the MDES for further consideration. If the case is deemed valid, the MDES requests a court order to block the infringing website. Once granted, the MDES notifies the internet service providers (ISPs) to block access to the specified website. Website blocking procedure in Thailand Recent advancements in website-blocking actions Seamless collaboration through digital integration. Thailand has made significant progress in digitizing its website-blocking procedures to improve efficiency and transparency. At present, all website-blocking applications and supporting evidence must be submitted in electronic format. These systems have significantly reduced processing
Read More
September 24, 2025
Online shopping in Thailand is more accessible than ever, with global platforms, local social media shops, and entertainment-driven social commerce enabling instant purchases. However, this convenience comes with rising concerns over digital intellectual property (IP) infringement, including counterfeit goods, pirated content, and unauthorized brand usage. At first glance, online platforms appear to offer quick solutions. Most major e-commerce sites, social media channels, and social commerce platforms provide “notice and takedown” systems, where IP owners can file complaints and request the removal of listings that infringe IP rights, such as trademarks and copyrights. These tools are certainly useful, as seeing a fake product vanish from a platform feels like progress. But the reality is less reassuring. The counterfeit goods themselves remain in warehouses, markets, or shops, ready to be resold. Sellers whose accounts are taken down often return within days under new names or accounts. In other words, a takedown is like cutting weeds without pulling out the roots: they always grow back. While notice and takedown tools are widely available and can be managed internally by most IP owners, their impact is often short-lived. IP owners seeking more effective, lasting protection need to take a more strategic and multilayered approach. The same applies to online piracy. Unauthorized streaming websites that offer free access to movies, TV shows, or sports broadcasts have become widespread in Thailand. To combat this, rightsholders can request website blocking under the Computer Crime Act, through the Ministry of Digital Economy and Society and the courts. Once requests are approved, internet service providers are ordered to block access to infringing sites. Blocking orders can be effective in disrupting large-scale piracy operations, but they also face limitations—pirate sites frequently reappear under new domains. Strategic Protection Whether the infringing material is physical counterfeit goods or intangible streaming content,
Read More
September 4, 2025
On June 6, 2025, the Superior People’s Court in Hanoi overturned a non-use cancellation decision by the Intellectual Property Office of Vietnam, a rare and impactful occurrence. In a ruling that may help clarify the enforcement of Vietnam’s IP Law, the court held that valid trademark use can be established through commercial arrangements where the brand owner maintains actual control over the use of the mark, and is not confined to relationships governed by a so-called “formal license agreement. Background: Cross-Border Use, Local Challenge A Singapore company owns a well-known brand of consumer products that has gained recognition across Southeast Asia. In recent years, the brand has been targeted by several unauthorized trademark filings in Vietnam. In one such instance, a local Vietnamese trading company—previously linked to the production and export of counterfeit goods to neighboring countries—filed a non-use cancellation against the Singapore company’s mark and sought to register it under its own name. If the cancellation had been upheld, it would have enabled a complete hijacking of the brand. The IP holder operates in Vietnam through a structured cross-border supply chain. Under an agreement between two related foreign entities, one of which managed regional operations, production orders were placed through a designated Vietnamese company. While the Vietnamese manufacturer was not a party to the agreement, its role in using the mark was recognized and governed by internal and commercial documentation. The Vietnamese manufacturer lawfully obtained the necessary permits, regulatory approvals, and customs clearances for producing the goods in Vietnam. These activities were supported by banking records and internal communications, evidencing active, continuous use of the mark in Vietnam. However, the IP Office concluded that this use did not meet the statutory criteria because the Vietnamese manufacturer did not have a direct license agreement with the brand owner, as
Read More
August 25, 2025
Indonesia’s current regulations on franchises, as stipulated under Government Regulation No. 35/2024 on Franchising and its implementing regulation, Ministry of Trade (MOT) Regulation No. 71/2019 regarding Implementation of Franchising, highlight fundamental changes in franchise registration. These changes have introduced additional complexities and challenges in the franchise registration procedure, making it more difficult for franchise owners to navigate the process. New procedure Franchise applications are still submitted through the Online Single Submission (OSS) portal of the Capital Investment Coordinating Board (BKPM). However, the new procedure requires each applicant, including foreign franchisors, to have an OSS account and a business registration number (NIB) issued by BKPM. An application for franchise registration must be submitted under the applicant’s own account—submissions can no longer be made through the account of a consultant. Once a franchise application is submitted, the authority will distribute the submission to the MOT—the authorized ministry for franchise registration. Any notification or decision upon the registration made by the MOT will be available in the OSS system. Applicants should regularly monitor the status of the franchise application because no notifications will be sent to applicants to alert them of any deficiency. Here is the summary of the new procedure for franchisors: Notable Requirements The disclosure document, or prospectus, is the key focus for the MOT in examining a franchise registration for a franchisor. This document is subject to thorough scrutiny by the MOT to ensure that all mandatory information meets the requirements set in the franchise regulations. The current regulations specifically require that the mandatory clause “business system” in the prospectus cover operational standards and procedures, which should include human resource management, administration, operational management, standard operating methods, business location selection, business premises design, employee requirements, and marketing strategies. Other clauses that are equally important to pay attention to are:
Read More