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

September 22, 2023

Balancing Conflicting Rights of Geographical Indications in Vietnam

Subscribe to Updates
Managing Intellectual Property

The most familiar and well-protected IP rights are copyrights, patents, and trademarks. However, geographical indications (GIs) are also protected by TRIPS, and are perhaps the most contested rights worldwide.

Like a trademark, a GI identifies the origin of goods, but refers to a particular region which yields product qualities that cannot be replicated elsewhere. In practice, most GIs relate to agricultural products, and many originate from Europe, such as the terms Champagne, Mozzarella, and Parmesan. Due to the fundamental relationship between place and product, there have been major arguments that producers outside a specified region are not permitted to use the place name on product labels, no matter how similar their product is to the GI-protected product. A few years ago, a series of European GIs for cheese products were opposed in Vietnam by U.S. producers who considered the terms common names that should not be monopolized under the GI protection scheme. In addition, the overlapping rights between trademarks and GIs and their historically tempestuous relationship add more trauma to lawmakers and IP practitioners.

Amid this controversy, Vietnam has joined many international agreements with regard to IP and GI rights, including the TRIPS Agreement, the CPTPP, and the EU-Vietnam Free Trade Agreement (EVFTA). Although Vietnam’s IP Law has been amended to reflect these agreements, Vietnamese lawmakers still bear a heavy responsibility in drafting and issuing legislation to further guide the implementation of the amended law, to not only correctly reflect Vietnam’s international commitments, but also to balance the rights of many sides with conflicting interests regarding GIs and trademarks. This legislation includes an upcoming circular regarding industrial property rights (the “draft Circular”).

Information Transparency

The CPTPP requires GI applications or petitions to be published for opposition, and provides procedures for opposing such GIs. In addition, it requires Vietnam to “make available information sufficient to allow the general public to obtain guidance concerning the procedures and the processing for filing applications or petitions to ascertain the status of specific applications and petitions.” However, Vietnam still has no public database of GIs, apart from the corresponding publications in the IP Gazette. The establishment of such a database, including the status of GI applications and registrations and relevant information and forms for opposing a GI application or requesting the cancellation of a registered GI, is crucial for meeting this requirement.

Under current practice and as provided under the draft Circular, the contents of GI applications to be published in the IP Gazette include the abstract of the specific characteristics of the product bearing the GI and the product name bearing the GI. However, in practice, the IP Gazette has not yet specified, as required under the CPTPP, (i) an indication of the individual terms for which the protection is disclaimed in the case of multi-component terms seeking protection as GIs, or (ii) an indication of whether the GI application also includes a translation or transliteration of the name for which protection is sought.

Common Terms and Fair Market Access

The amended IP Law clearly states that a GI will not be registered if it has become the common name of goods according to the perception of relevant consumers in the Vietnamese territory. However, there is still no guidance on how to determine whether a term is the “common name.” Vietnam must issue guidance on this, taking into account the CPTPP’s provision that such factors could include dictionaries, newspapers, and relevant websites, and the way the goods are marketed and used.

In addition, exceptions in the EVFTA concerning the prior use of terms such as Asiago, Feta, Fontina, and Gorgonzola state that GI protection over those names would not bar anyone in Vietnam from continuing to use the names if they had been using them in good faith before 1 January 2017. However, to date, there is no guidance or confirmation on this, leaving the companies who satisfy such conditions in limbo.

It should be noted that the guidelines under the CPTPP are a non-exhaustive list, therefore any guidance for Vietnam should also be open. In addition, it will be more practical if a non-exhaustive list of common names is made publicly available to ensure the free use of generic terms will not be threatened by future GI applications.

Prior Trademark Rights

Under the amended IP Law, a GI will not be protected if it is identical or similar to a trademark that is currently protected or is pending under an application with an earlier filing date or priority date, if the use of that GI is likely to cause confusion as to the commercial origin of the goods. The draft Circular also stipulates that within the GI examination procedure, when the IP Office identifies marks that are identical to or closely resembling the GIs, it must notify the owner of the mark and invite opinion on the GI’s registration. This could be interpreted to mean that the IP Office would not be entitled to refuse ex officio a GI when it is confusingly similar to a prior trademark, but only when there is an objection from the trademark owner—a potential conflict with Article 117 (Refusal to grant protection) of the IP Law.

Conflict between prior trademarks and GIs has actually happened—for example, the case of the “Tan Trieu” pomelo, which was granted a GI registration certificate by the IP Office in 2012 to the Dong Nai Province People’s Committee. However, the IP Office had already granted two trademark registrations for the identical sign “Tan Trieu” to Tan Trieu Que Huong Private Enterprise in 2008, also for pomelo products. The IP Office later invalidated the trademark registrations, leaving many doubts for the public.

Meanwhile, under the TRIPS Agreement, if a trademark has been applied for or registered in good faith, or if rights to a trademark had been acquired through use in good faith before the GI was protected, whether such trademark is identical or similar to a GI shall not prejudice eligibility for or the validity of the registration or use of the trademark. However, neither the IP Law nor the draft Circular touch upon this matter. Therefore, to clear up any possible conflict between owners of trademark and GIs, the law should have clearer guidance on this issue.

Outlook

Vietnam’s efforts to rebuild its existing legal system when entering the global playing field have been commendable, and the amended IP Law and draft Circular both show promising changes. However, practical measures still need to be adopted in the country’s legal framework to truly facilitate IP rights for GI and trademark owners.

This article first appeared in Managing Intellectual Property.

Related Professionals

Practices

Intellectual Property

Location

RELATED INSIGHTS​ 

July 31, 2025
The Madrid System for international trademark registration provides the opportunity for a simplified and cost-effective way to register trademarks in multiple countries through a single application. Indonesia joined the Madrid System in 2018, and in 2024 alone, it received over 8,600 applications through this system. Despite the system’s effectiveness, it is important for trademark owners to be aware of the potential risks of refusal that can arise during the process of registration. Trademark applicants must pay close attention to these critical points when designating Indonesia. Appointing a Local Representative to Respond An applicant or representative of an international registration (IR) application that has been provisionally refused must appoint a local Indonesian representative in order to submit a response to the provisional refusal. This appointment is solely for the purpose of responding to the refusal in Indonesia; it is not necessary if the IR has not received any rejection. Furthermore, the local representative should not be registered with WIPO, as doing so would affect representation across all designated countries. Timing When it comes to calculating the deadline for responding to a provisional refusal, there is a discrepancy between the methods used by the DGIP and WIPO. Under the Indonesian Trademark Law, trademark owners can file a response within 30 working days, excluding weekends and national holidays. However, the WIPO cover letter accompanying the DGIP’s provisional refusal notice specifies both the start date and the deadline for responding to the notification, which is calculated as 30 calendar days, including weekends and national holidays. Therefore, a response to the provisional refusal of IR should be submitted in accordance with the WIPO cover letter to prevent any formality issue. Grounds for Refusal After an IR application is published in Indonesia’s Trademark Gazette, it undergoes substantive examination by the Directorate General of Intellectual Property (DGIP) examiners. The
Read More
July 30, 2025
Artificial intelligence (AI) model training and data scraping are essential processes in the development of modern AI systems. AI model training involves using large datasets to teach machine learning algorithms to recognize patterns, make predictions, or generate new content. Data scraping refers to the automated extraction of information from websites or digital sources, often to assemble the vast datasets required for effective AI training. As these practices become more widespread, questions about the legality of using third-party content—especially copyrighted works—have become increasingly important. In Thailand, the legal landscape for AI developers is shaped primarily by the Copyright Act, which presents unique challenges due to the absence of a fair-use exception. This article examines the copyright-related risks and legal uncertainties facing AI developers under Thailand’s current copyright law and practices, offering strategic guidance for navigating this complex environment. Copyright Risks in AI Scraping and Training Thailand’s Copyright Act does not provide a broad fair use or fair dealing exception, unlike some other jurisdictions, such as the United States. This absence has significant consequences for AI developers: No general defense for AI training: Any use of copyrighted material for AI model training is presumed to be infringing unless a specific, narrow statutory exception applies or explicit permission is obtained from the rights holder. There is no general legal basis for using copyrighted works in AI training without authorization. Increased rights clearance burden: Developers must identify and secure licenses for every copyrighted work included in their training datasets. Given the scale and diversity of data required for effective AI models, this process can be both impractical and costly. Legal ambiguity and litigation risk: The lack of clear statutory guidance or case law leaves developers in a legal gray area. There is no established precedent clarifying whether certain uses of copyrighted material for
Read More
July 25, 2025
Over the first half of 2025, the government of Vietnam has implemented a comprehensive suite of legislative reforms that significantly impact the country’s intellectual property (IP) framework. These amendments, most of which took effect on 1 July 2025, span the criminal, civil, administrative, and judicial sectors, and are part of a broader initiative to modernize Vietnam’s legal infrastructure, strengthen enforcement mechanisms, and harmonize domestic regulations with international standards. A summary of the key legislative changes and their potential implications for IP protection and enforcement across Vietnam is provided below. Criminal Code: Stricter penalties Under the 2025 amendments to Vietnam’s Criminal Code, penalties for offenses involving the manufacturing and trading of counterfeit goods have been significantly escalated. Individuals convicted of such violations now face fines ranging from VND 200 million to VND 2 billion (approximately USD 7,700 to USD 77,000; up from VND 100 million to VND 1 billion). For corporate entities, the penalties are even more severe, with fines ranging from VND 2 billion to VND 40 billion (roughly USD 77,000 to USD 1.54 million; up from VND 1 billion to VND 20 billion). These heightened penalties reflect the government’s intensified efforts to deter counterfeit-related crimes and protect consumer rights. Law on Handling Administrative Violations: Extended statute of limitations and application of electronic procedure The statute of limitations for addressing administrative violations in the IP sector is still two years. However, in cases where such violations are referred by procedural authorities, this period is extended by one year. The time taken by these authorities to process the case is now included within the overall limitation period. In addition, the Law on Handling Administrative Violations facilitates the use of electronic procedures, provided that the necessary infrastructure, technical systems, and information conditions are in place. Specifically, enforcement authorities are now permitted
Read More
July 21, 2025
Distinctiveness is a fundamental requirement for a trademark’s registration and protection under Thai law. The Thai courts typically assess distinctiveness based on a mark’s inherent characteristics rather than its use, as proving acquired distinctiveness through use requires substantial evidence, including the duration of use, extent of distribution and promotional efforts. However, the Intellectual Property and International Trade Court (IP & IT Court) has recently ruled that the figurative mark WEPLAY had acquired distinctiveness through use – an uncommon ruling under Thai trademark law. Subsequently, the Court of Appeal for Specialised Cases affirmed the mark’s inherent distinctiveness based on a holistic assessment of its components. This article discusses the criteria for proving both inherent and acquired distinctiveness, offering examples from both courts to provide valuable insights into case preparation and understanding of how the courts assess distinctiveness. Background In 2017 the plaintiff filed a trademark application for the mark depicted below for goods in Class 28, including toy building blocks: The registrar rejected the application on the grounds of non-distinctiveness under Section 7 of the Trademark Act. The plaintiff appealed to the Board of Trademarks, which considered that, when the term ‘weplay’ is used for goods in Class 28, it is descriptive of the nature of the goods applied for as “playthings”. Therefore, ‘weplay’ was deemed nondistinctive under Section 7, Paragraph 2(2) of the Trademark Act. IP & IT Court decision In 2024 the IP & IT Court ruled that the term ‘weplay’ is not a coined or invented word; instead, it is a combination of ‘we’ and ‘play’, conveying the meaning of ‘we play’. When the term is used for goods in Class 28, it describes the nature of the goods as “playthings”. Consequently, the mark was deemed non-distinctive. However, the court considered the evidence presented by the plaintiff,
Read More