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 21, 2026
Thailand’s Ministry of Digital Economy and Society (MDES) published a notification establishing an expedited court-ordered takedown mechanism for online content in cases of “urgent necessity.” The notification, which was issued on July 17, 2026, under the Computer Crime Act B.E. 2550 (2007), as amended, took effect the following day. It significantly expands the categories of content subject to rapid government-initiated removal. Content Categories Subject to Takedown The notification defines “urgent necessity” (section 20, paragraph 5, of the Computer Crime Act) as circumstances where any delay in suppressing computer data may impact national security, religion, the monarchy, good morals, social culture, or public order. In this regard, it establishes four broad categories of content: Computer Crime Act offenses. National security offenses. IP and other criminal offenses, where it is contrary to public order or good morals and a competent officer has requested its suppression. Content contrary to public order or good morals, a broad residual category encompassing 14 subcategories approved by the Computer Data Screening Committee. The fourth category is the most expansive. Its 14 subcategories include: Content defaming, mocking, satirizing, or devaluing the monarchy. Online gambling advertising or facilitation. Offering illegal firearms for sale. Offering baraku (hookah) products or e-cigarettes for sale. Offering cannabis inflorescences or processed cannabis products for sale. Advertising or soliciting prostitution. Content inciting violence, hatred, or social division. Unauthorized overseas employment advertising. Offering boiled kratom juice for sale. Online sale or advertising of alcoholic beverages. Content satirizing or degrading Buddhism. Money lending at interest rates exceeding legally prescribed limits. Advertising or disseminating information about surrogacy services. Forgery of documents, cards, or official documents. Enforcement Procedure In cases of urgent necessity, a competent official assigned by the MDES permanent secretary must file a petition with supporting evidence to the court with jurisdiction, requesting an order to
Read More
July 15, 2026
Ambush marketing refers to a strategy in which a business associates itself with an event, campaign, or brand without paying for official sponsorship rights. The tactic is most visible in sports, concerts, and festivals, where official sponsors have invested substantially for exclusivity. Ambush marketers may use suggestive wording, event-themed imagery, athlete endorsements, venue-adjacent promotions, or social media campaigns implying a commercial connection with the event. Common Forms of Ambush Marketing Ambush marketing typically takes one of the following forms: Direct ambushing: using event names, logos, or mascots suggesting authorization Coattail ambushing: sponsoring an athlete or broadcaster connected with the event Subtle ambushing: themed advertising, venue-adjacent campaigns, or similar visual cues The legal analysis in each case turns on whether the marketing crosses from permissible event-based advertising into infringement, passing off, deception, or wrongful exploitation of goodwill, and the risk assessment is necessarily fact-specific. Thailand has no dedicated ambush marketing statute, so legality depends on execution. A campaign that merely comments on a public event may be permissible, but one that uses protected marks, creates consumer confusion, misrepresents sponsorship status, or makes unsubstantiated claims may trigger liability under various Thai laws, as laid out below. Ambush Marketing and Thailand’s Trademark Act The Trademark Act B.E. 2534 (1991) is the primary tool for addressing campaigns that use registered trademarks, event names, logos, mascots, or confusingly similar signs. The law gives registered trademark owners the exclusive right to use their mark for registered goods, and infringement risk arises when a nonsponsor uses an event mark or a confusingly similar sign in advertising. Even referential or playful use may create liability if it causes public confusion as to sponsorship or commercial connection. The law also preserves passing-off claims for unregistered marks. This matters because event names, taglines, or mascots may not always be
Read More
July 13, 2026
When Decree No. 186/2026/ND-CP (Decree 186) takes effect on July 15, 2026, it will introduce the most significant reform of Vietnam’s administrative IP enforcement framework since Decree 99/2013/ND-CP was issued in 2013. These changes are expected to make administrative enforcement faster, more accessible, and better suited to the realities of modern IP disputes. Below are the principal reforms and their practical implications for rights holders and enforcement practitioners. The End of Notarization and Consular Legalization Among the most welcome procedural changes is the abolition of the notarization and consular legalization requirement for powers of attorney (POA) submitted in administrative enforcement proceedings. Under the previous regime, foreign rights holders were generally required to execute a POA, then have it notarized and consular legalized (if seeking customs recordal). In practice, this process frequently delayed enforcement by four to eight weeks, often long enough for infringing goods to disappear before authorities could intervene. Decree 186 removes this bottleneck, now requiring only an original or certified copy of the POA. If the document is in a foreign language, a Vietnamese translation is sufficient, provided it is certified by a competent authority or confirmed by the authorized Vietnamese IP representative. Consular legalization and notarization are no longer required. For rights holders, the practical impact is substantial. Administrative enforcement files that previously took weeks to prepare can now be completed in a matter of days, allowing much faster responses in time-sensitive matters such as warehouse raids, border interventions, and trade-fair enforcement. The decree also introduces a useful administrative simplification. Where an original POA has already been submitted to the same enforcement authority and remains valid, applicants may rely on a copy of that earlier submission by identifying the previous case file. This eliminates unnecessary duplication for rights holders pursuing multiple enforcement actions before the same
Read More
July 9, 2026
Recycling, upcycling, and refill-packaging models are now widely promoted as ways to reduce waste, lower carbon emissions, and respond to consumer demand for sustainable products. However, complications arise when these environmentally driven trends intersect with intellectual property law—particularly where reused or altered packaging continues to display third parties’ registered trademarks. Adding to this complexity, Thailand’s draft Sustainable Packaging Management Act aims to introduce new environmental compliance obligations that businesses must navigate alongside existing trademark concerns. Recycling and upcycling packaging may infringe trademark rights, especially in cases not protected by the first-sale doctrine—the principle that a trademark owner’s rights over a particular mark-bearing product end once the owner first sells it. Furthermore, even refill packaging carries legal risk due to specific statutory prohibitions under Thai law. Compounding these challenges, the draft Sustainable Packaging Management Act will impose extended producer responsibility (EPR) obligations on manufacturers and brand owners, requiring them to manage packaging throughout its lifecycle. These overlapping legal frameworks could deter manufacturers from pursuing ESG-aligned business models unless businesses understand how to navigate both trademark and environmental requirements. Under Thai law, this issue remains uncertain because the Trademark Act does not expressly codify the first sale doctrine, also known as the exhaustion of trademark rights. Generally, this doctrine provides that once a trademark owner has lawfully sold goods bearing its trademark, the owner’s right to control further resale of those particular goods is exhausted. The rationale is that the owner has already received commercial benefit from the first authorized sale; therefore, the purchaser should be free to resell or otherwise dispose of the goods. Although the doctrine is not expressly codified in the Trademark Act, Thai courts have recognized it in relation to genuine goods and parallel imports, as seen in a Supreme Court Judgment No. 2817/2543 in which the
Read More