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​ 

September 14, 2026
Myanmar’s first-to-file trademark registration regime under the Trademark Law 2019—which became fully operational in April 2023—provides mark owners with enhanced legal protection compared with the country’s former system. Correspondingly, the current system imposes more rigorous statutory requirements for obtaining, maintaining, and enforcing rights in marks. In this first-to-file trademark registration system, however, evidence of use remains particularly significant, as it may establish acquired distinctiveness, support a claim that a mark is well-known, and strengthen the owner’s position in both registration and enforcement proceedings. Accordingly, it can be said that this framework is underpinned by three key concepts: distinctiveness, well-known status, and, importantly, use of the trademark. Trademark Distinctiveness Under the Trademark Law, signs that lack distinctiveness are generally ineligible for mark protection. These signs include generic terms, basic shapes, unstylized single letters or numerals, and signs that merely describe the kind, quality, quantity, intended purpose, value, geographical origin, production time, or other characteristics of the relevant goods or services. However, a mark that would otherwise be refused on distinctiveness or descriptiveness grounds may be registrable if it has acquired distinctiveness through its use prior to the filing date. To show this, the applicant must demonstrate that the mark became distinctive to relevant consumers through continuous, exclusive, and good-faith use in trade within Myanmar. The burden of proving acquired distinctiveness rests with the mark owner. Accordingly, sufficient evidence demonstrating both use of the mark and the level of consumer recognition attained should be prepared in advance. Well-Known Mark Criteria Myanmar’s Trademark Rules, which govern the substantive examination of mark registration applications, establish criteria for determining well-known marks, aligned with international standards. Where an applicant claims well-known status—whether to overcome a refusal on relative grounds or to oppose a third party’s registration—the registrar will assess the claim based on the following
September 14, 2026
On August 23, 2026, Vietnam’s National Assembly passed Law No. 11/2026/QH16, amending the country’s Customs Law with effect from March 1, 2027. The amendments represent a substantial reform of Vietnam’s customs-based intellectual property enforcement regime. The reforms come amid considerable external pressure. In its 2026 Special 301 review, the US Trade Representative (USTR) designated Vietnam a “priority foreign country,” citing widespread counterfeiting, weak border enforcement, limited ex officio customs powers, and the absence of controls over goods in transit. Vietnam’s legislative response signals a commitment to bringing its border enforcement practices into line with international expectations. For IP rights holders operating in or through Vietnam, the amended law introduces several tools that substantially strengthen enforcement options at the border. Closing the Transit Gap One of the most consequential amendments is the extension of IP-related customs enforcement to goods in transit. Previously, Vietnam’s customs regime applied IP controls only to goods being imported or exported, a gap the USTR had specifically identified as enabling infringing goods to pass through Vietnamese ports with impunity. Vietnam’s geographic position as a logistics hub for Southeast Asia means that substantial volumes of goods transit its ports and free-trade zones. Extending enforcement to cover these shipments brings Vietnam closer to the standard set by the EU’s customs enforcement regulation and addresses a longstanding concern of multinational brand owners whose goods are frequently counterfeited in the region. Strengthened Suspension and Ex Officio Powers The amended law introduces a dual-track suspension mechanism (Article 73(2)). Customs authorities will suspend clearance upon request by an IP rights holder (or authorized representative) who provides evidence of IP ownership, evidence of infringement, and a financial guarantee. Customs can now proactively suspend clearance on an ex officio basis if, during inspection and monitoring, they discover “clear grounds” to suspect that imported, exported,
September 7, 2026
Indonesia’s Constitutional Court (Mahkamah Konstitusi) has reinstated a key provision limiting pharmaceutical patent protection, signaling a renewed commitment to balancing patent rights with public access to medicines. In its ruling to Case No. 255/PUU-XXIII/2025, the court partially granted a petition for judicial review of Law No. 65 of 2024, which had amended the country’s Patent Law, and ordered the restoration of a provision that had excluded certain pharmaceutical inventions from patentability. The decision took effect immediately upon its pronouncement at the court’s plenary session on August 28, 2026. Background The petition challenged the removal of article 4(f) from Law No. 13 of 2016 concerning Patents (Patent Law), as amended by Law No. 65 of 2024. Article 4(f) had excluded from patentability certain inventions relating to new uses of known substances. The petitioners argued that removing this provision would open the door to patent protection for second medical use inventions and facilitate patent evergreening—practices that can extend exclusivity periods, delay generic market entry, and reduce public access to affordable medicines. The petitioners included several patient advocacy and public-interest organizations: the Indonesian Dialysis Patients Community Association, the Indonesian Association of Drug Abuse Victims (PKNI), the Indonesian Pulmonary Hypertension Foundation (YHPI), the Rekat Peduli Indonesia Foundation, and the Indonesian Positive Women’s Association (IPPI), along with the Indonesia for Global Justice Association and four individual petitioners. The petitioners also challenged the constitutionality of the phrase “interested party” in article 70(1) of the Patent Law, arguing that it should be construed expressly to clarify who has standing to appeal a decision to grant a patent before the Board of Patent Appeal, and to allow a broader range of parties—such as patent holders, licensees, consumer organizations, prosecutors, aggrieved third parties, and others who may suffer direct or indirect harm from the grant of a patent—to
September 2, 2026
Thailand and China have a longstanding and significant trade relationship, which increasingly extends to e-commerce and digitally enabled supply chains. While these channels create new opportunities for businesses to reach consumers across borders, their growth also brings greater exposure to intellectual property (IP) infringement across jurisdictions and online platforms. Effective cooperation between the two countries’ enforcement authorities has therefore become increasingly important. To strengthen cooperation in this area, Thailand and China signed a memorandum of understanding (MOU) on IP enforcement in Beijing on July 20, 2026, during the Thai prime minister’s official visit to China. Officially titled “Memorandum of Understanding Between the State Administration for Market Regulation of the People’s Republic of China and the Ministry of Commerce of the Kingdom of Thailand on Cooperation in the Field of Intellectual Property Enforcement,” the MOU forms part of a broader bilateral agenda covering industrial and supply chains, participation by micro, small, and medium-sized enterprises (MSMEs), cooperation associated with the ASEAN–China Free Trade Area 3.0, and progress on the registration of Thai geographical indications in China. The MOU establishes a bilateral framework for cooperation and coordination in five broad areas: Strengthening dialogue in IP enforcement; Enhancing information sharing; Facilitating the enforcement of IP rights in cases arising in the parties’ domestic markets and on online platforms, in accordance with their respective domestic laws; Promoting cooperation in IP enforcement training and human resource development; and Undertaking other cooperation activities agreed upon by both sides. The Department of Intellectual Property (DIP) will serve as the principal coordinating agency for Thailand, while the Bureau of Law Enforcement and Inspection in China’s State Administration for Market Regulation (SAMR) will serve in that role for China. The framework is particularly relevant to the growth of e-commerce, as it covers infringement in the domestic markets and on