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

October 12, 2016

Use Requirements for Trademarks in Vietnam: A Low Threshold?

Subscribe to Updates
Managing Intellectual Property

Vietnam applies the first-to-file principle for trademark registration and does not require evidence of use or intent to use at the time of filing, or for renewal. For maintaining a registration, though, a trademark owner or its licensee must use the mark or risk cancellation for non-use. The IP Law stipulates that if a mark has not been used by its owner or a licensee without justifiable reasons for five consecutive years prior to a request for cancellation, except where the use is commenced or resumed at least three months before the request, the registration is vulnerable to cancellation. However, the trademark owner is not required to submit evidence of use on a regular basis—only when the mark is attacked for non-use.

What Actions Constitute Use?

According to Article 124.5 of the IP Law, use of a mark includes any of the following acts:

  • Affixing the protected mark on goods, packaging, facilities, means of service provision, or transaction documents in the course of business;
  • Circulating, offering, advertising or stocking for sale goods bearing the protected mark; and
  • Importing goods or services bearing the protected mark.

It is unclear whether the manufacture of trademarked goods for export only constitutes use. However, some IP enforcement authorities, when assessing alleged trademark infringements, have interpreted that the manufacture of trademarked goods in Vietnam, which logically includes the acts of affixing the mark on the goods, qualifies as unauthorized “use” of the mark in Vietnam. If the NOIP were to adopt this analysis in cancellation actions, trademark owners could rely on the manufacture of trademarked goods in Vietnam for export only as evidence of use of marks.

Scale of Use

The law is silent as to how much use is sufficient to maintain a registration. In a recent case, the NOIP maintained a mark against a non-use cancellation request based on a single sale over a period of 15 years.

Use of Mark in Different Form

Article 124 stipulates that the mark in use should be the “protected mark,” which could be strictly interpreted to mean the exact same mark that is indicated in the registration. However, the NOIP more commonly applies the approach under Article 5 of the Paris Convention (to which Vietnam is a member), which stipulates that “[u]se of a trademark by the proprietor in a form differing in elements which do not alter the distinctive character of the mark in the form in which it was registered in one of the countries of the Union shall not entail invalidation of the registration and shall not diminish the protection granted to the mark.”

While there is no specific regulation on this issue, the NOIP has indicated that if a word mark is registered in a standard font, the use of that word in a stylized form will be considered use of the standard word mark for the purpose of maintaining a registration. However, this does not apply in the other direction; the use of a mark in a standard font is often not accepted as evidence of use of a registered stylized mark.

Regarding color vs. black-and-white, in practice, the NOIP may accept use of a mark in color as evidence of use of a registered black-and-white mark, if the other elements of the mark are kept unchanged and such elements are the mark’s dominant elements, and the contrast of light and dark is maintained. The reverse direction has not yet been discussed by the NOIP.

In both of the above circumstances, use of the mark in a different form is only accepted if such use does not infringe another’s trademark rights.

Use by a Licensee

Use of the trademark by a licensee is also deemed use by the owner. However, the law is unclear about the validity of an unrecorded license agreement against a third party. Under Article 148.2 of the IP Law, a trademark license agreement is valid as agreed upon by the involved parties, but will only be legally effective to a third party upon its recordal with the NOIP. There is no definition of “third party” in this context; in practice, it can refer to state bodies, banks, or a related party in a non-use cancellation action. Thus, a third party who initiates a non-use cancellation may argue that an unrecorded license is not valid against this third party, and therefore the use by such licensee does not amount to use of the licensed mark. We recommend recordal of all trademark license agreements to avoid such risks.

Among all issues regarding use requirements, scale of use and use by a licensee under an unrecorded license remain unclear and need improvements. If and when the TPP becomes valid, the issue of use by an unregistered licensee will be resolved. As such, the remaining issue is scale of use. To address this, Vietnam may consider adopting the internationally accepted concept of “token use” vs. “genuine use”. This may help to clear up the registry and create healthy competition for businesses.

Download Full Article
Related Professionals

Practices

Intellectual Property

Location

RELATED INSIGHTS​ 

September 30, 2026
Packaging is a valuable commercial asset that helps consumers identify and distinguish products through their shape, colors, graphics, labels, and overall presentation. Obtaining legal protections for these assets is thus an important step. Businesses entering into or operating in the Myanmar market should assess whether trademark protection, industrial design protection, or both provide the strongest IP strategy for these features. The country’s Intellectual Property Department (IPD) under the Ministry of Commerce now administers trademark and industrial design registrations since Myanmar’s modernization of its intellectual property framework through the enactment of four key IP laws in 2019. Trademark Protection for Packaging Under the Trademark Law 2019, a “mark” is any visually perceptible sign, including words, names, letters, numerals, figurative elements, color combinations, or combinations of these signs, capable of distinguishing one undertaking’s goods or services from another’s. Trademark protection may therefore extend to certain elements of product packaging that function as source identifiers. Depending on their presentation and distinctiveness, packaging elements such as brand names, logos, labels, configurations, color combinations, and three-dimensional (3D) shapes may qualify for trademark protection. However, under the current practice of the IPD and its available examination guidelines, the packaging and  trade dress (including product get-up) are not expressly recognized as separate registrable subject matter in Myanmar. Under the Trademark Law 2019, trademark infringement—including unauthorized use of a registered mark on packaging—may give rise to civil remedies, including injunctions and damages, as well as criminal penalties. A 3D mark may protect packaging shape or configuration if it has acquired distinctiveness through use and consumers associate it with the relevant products. However, a shape dictated by a functional or technical purpose is ineligible for registration. Registration of a 3D mark may be renewed indefinitely for successive ten-year periods, subject to compliance with renewal requirements. Industrial Design Protection
Read More
September 30, 2026
Under Thailand’s Patent Act B.E. 2522 (1979), any person may raise the invalidity of a patent as a matter of defense. However, the right to initiate court proceedings to cancel a patent is reserved exclusively for an “interested person” or the public prosecutor. This distinction between merely challenging validity and initiating judicial revocation proceedings has given rise to a significant body of Supreme Court (Dika) jurisprudence interpreting who qualifies as an “interested person” under the Patent Act. Statutory Framework Section 54 of the Patent Act provides that any invention patent granted not in compliance with the patentability requirements will be invalid, and that a petition to cancel such a patent may be submitted to the court by any “interested person” or the public prosecutor. Section 64 mirrors this provision for design patents, and section 65 novies extends the same framework to petty patents. However, none of these provisions defines the term “interested person,” leaving its interpretation to the courts. Supreme Court Interpretation The Thai Supreme Court has developed a consistent body of case law establishing that an “interested person” must be someone directly affected by the existence of the patent—not simply any member of the public. In 1989, the court found (Dika No. 2670/2532) that a party whose intended use of the patented technology was still in a preparatory stage—before actual manufacturing had commenced—did not qualify as an interested person. However, in 2009 the Supreme Court further elaborated  (Dika No. 2906/2552) that an interested party is one whose rights to utilize the invention are restricted by virtue of the patent, such as a manufacturer or producer whose operations are directly impacted by the patentee’s exclusive rights. In the 2008 case of T.M. Grating Steel Co., Ltd. v. Billion Mass Industry Co., Ltd. (Dika No. 974/2551), where the plaintiff had
Read More
September 24, 2026
Vietnam is implementing and developing a broad package of regulatory reforms that could reshape how IP, data, digital platforms, and product authenticity are regulated and enforced. Several of the key measures have been led by the Ministry of Public Security in its legislative and administrative capacity, as part of a broader government effort. The core reform package consists of four key legal instruments: proposed amendments to the Criminal Code, a proposed new Data Security Law, a draft Decree on Product Identification, Authentication and Traceability, and the newly enacted Decree No. 330/2026/ND-CP. These instruments include rules on criminal enforcement, data security, electronic identification, product identification and traceability, administrative violations, and cybersecurity sanctions. Combined, these measures will affect copyright enforcement, industrial property rights, trade secrets, AI training data, product provenance, online takedowns, valuation of counterfeit goods and electronic evidence. It is worth noting that, in addition to strengthening criminal penalties for IP crimes, Vietnam’s emerging regulatory framework increasingly treats infringement, data misuse, product authentication, and platform-enabled violations as interconnected regulatory and enforcement challenges. For rights holders and foreign investors, this could mean stronger tools against counterfeiting and online infringement, but also more compliance obligations around data, traceability, AI, platform controls and government-facing reporting. Expansion of Criminal IP Enforcement Proposed amendments to Article 225 of the Criminal Code would expand criminal copyright exposure beyond reproduction and distribution to cover large-scale commercial public performance and online communication of works, phonograms and video recordings. This is important because piracy is increasingly about streaming, unauthorized communication, and platform access models rather than physical copying. Aggravated copyright infringement could be subject to up to 10 years in prison for individuals and fines of up to VND 6 billion (about USD 228,300) for commercial legal entities. The amended Article 226 would expand criminal industrial property liability beyond
Read More
September 21, 2026
Thailand’s first-to-file trademark system has a serious vulnerability: it lacks both an explicit mechanism for refusing bad-faith registrations and any means of invalidating them in court after the five-year limitation period has expired. While brand owners worldwide confront trademark squatting, Thailand’s statutory silence stands out, particularly in light of AIPPI’s 2017 Resolution Q249, which recommended that every jurisdiction provide clear tools to address bad faith at all stages of the trademark lifecycle. Nearly a decade later, Thailand has yet to act. This article proposes a concrete reform blueprint, drawing on the legislative models of China, the United Kingdom, and the European Union. The Statutory Gap Under the Thai Trademark Act B.E. 2534, no provision expressly authorizes examiners to reject an application on grounds of bad faith. Section 8(10) addresses well-known marks but offers no relief where the targeted mark lacks well-known status. Practitioners have resorted to Section 8(9)—which bars marks “contrary to public order, morality, or public policy”—as a workaround. However, this provision was designed to address the characteristics of the mark itself, not the applicant’s intent. Thai Supreme Court decisions have split on whether it can reach bad-faith conduct, creating persistent legal uncertainty. The gap extends beyond examination. Civil actions to cancel a bad-faith registration must be brought within five years—a deadline that frequently expires before foreign brand owners discover the squatted mark. Cancellation through the Board of Trademarks remains available but is slow, costly, and subject to court appeal, leaving bad-faith registrations in force during protracted proceedings. The system effectively rewards squatters and penalizes legitimate owners. Lessons from International Best Practices Several major jurisdictions have already closed this gap. China’s 2019 amendment to Article 4 of the Trademark Law introduced an absolute ground for refusal: “bad faith trademark applications without intent to use shall be rejected.” Bad
Read More