The title of a video game is likely one of the most valuable assets that a game developer holds. Registering a game title as a trademark secures exclusive rights over that title and prevents third parties from using it for games or related goods or services of their own. However, whether a game title is descriptive of the computer game is an issue that has come up repeatedly in Thailand with applications to register video game titles as trademarks. According to current practice, the trademark registrar and the Board of Trademarks at Thailand’s Department of Intellectual Property (DIP) do consider a game title to be descriptive of a computer game, regardless of whether the title is related to the actual features or characteristics of the game. In a recent case, a mobile game developer decided to mount a challenge to one such rejection of a video game title trademark application. The developer, which has brought many popular mobile games to the global market, had submitted a trademark application for the title of their mobile game “Clash Royale” in classes of computer game software (Class 9) and electronic games (Class 28). This application was rejected by the registrar and the Board of Trademarks for non-distinctiveness. The registrar and the board decided that the words “Clash Royale” can be interpreted to mean “battle of the kings.” In connection with goods in the applied-for classes, these words describe the nature of the goods as “games related to battles of the kings” and therefore are not registrable because they do not exhibit the distinctiveness required by Thailand’s Trademark Act. The game developer enlisted Tilleke & Gibbins to appeal the board’s decision to the Intellectual Property and International Trade Court (IP&IT Court), arguing that the mark “Clash Royale” is inherently distinctive and not directly

On August 19, 2021, the Ho Chi Minh City Police Investigation Department shared that they are investigating a case of copyright and related rights infringement under the decision to prosecute a criminal case related to the website Phimmoi.net. This is the first time Vietnam’s police force has prosecuted a case of copyright infringement.

A comprehensive legal environment is necessary to deter and address the theft of intellectual property, especially vulnerable IP assets like trade secrets. Vietnam’s compliance with the CPTPP’s trade secret requirements is necessary to ensure a healthy business environment as the country continues its path of economic integration.

Introduction Currently, under Vietnam’s Law on Intellectual Property of 2005, as amended in 2009 and 2019 (“IP Law”), secret prior art cannot be used in evaluating patent applications. However, an approach to evaluate secret prior art has been included, for the first time, in the draft amendment of the IP Law. Below is our discussion of this interesting topic. Recognition in Other Jurisdictions Secret prior art is the name given to prior art that, at the time of filing of a new patent application, was not discoverable by the new applicant or not publicly available. It exists as a filed but unpublished application, unavailable to the public until publication. Until that point, only the applicants and the patent examiners of the unpublished application know of its existence. Even though it is not discoverable or available to the public, secret prior art can still be used as a bar for novelty in many jurisdictions. Secret prior art is not limited to situations in which the first applicant and the new applicant are different people; secret prior art applies regardless. There is, however, a domestic limitation: Applications filed and not yet published in a foreign country are not considered to be secret prior art. When the applicants are different people, the new applicant has no way of discovering the secret prior art that exists as a filed and unpublished application of the first applicant. Regardless of the completeness of the patent search, the previously filed and unpublished application cannot be discovered. At the time of filing, the new applicant’s invention would seem novel. Later, it would be discovered that the application was actually filed after another application for the same invention, barring patentability. This creates confusion and unfairness among multiple applicants. One applicant can also file two separate applications at different