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 5, 2018

Vietnam: Addressing the Conflict Between Trademark and Copyright in Relation to Logos

Subscribe to Updates
Managing Intellectual Property

Under Vietnamese law, if a logo is capable of distinguishing the goods or services of its holder from those of others, it can qualify for trademark protection. If the logo is created personally by the author without copying others’ works and is fixed in a material form, it is also copyrightable as a work of applied art (assuming it meets the minimum creativity threshold).

Such parallel protection by both trademark and copyright laws can lead to a conflict of rights when one party obtains trademark rights to a logo through registration with the NOIP, while another party obtains protection for an identical or confusingly similar logo through the copyright regime. How does the law address this conflict? The answer depends on which right existed first.

If copyright arose first

There is no direct provision that a trademark registration will be invalidated if it is identical or similar to a prior copyrighted logo. However, there are some indirect provisions that a copyright owner can rely on to challenge a trademark registration. Article 17 of Decree No. 103/2016/ND-CP of 22 September 2006, guiding the implementation of the IP Law, stipulates a principle on respecting previously established IP rights: “industrial property rights of an organization or individual may be invalidated or banned from exercise if they conflict with previously established intellectual property rights of another organization or individual.”

This provision can be understood to mean that a third party can rely on its prior copyright (an intellectual property right) for a logo to invalidate a trademark registration, if the use of the logo protected by the contested registration conflicts with its copyright. But it does not work the other way around, as it specifies that only “industrial property rights”, not “intellectual property rights”, may be invalidated. However, as this provision is vague—it does not provide concrete circumstances/conditions for the invalidation—it is rarely applied in practice.

Another relevant provision is Point 39.4(g) of Circular No. 01/2017/TT-BKHCN guiding the implementation of Decree No. 103/2006/ND-CP, which stipulates that a sign is ineligible for protection as a trademark if it is identical or confusingly similar to images of characters or figures in other persons’ widely known works under copyright protection, unless it is so permitted by the owners of those works. Strictly speaking, a logo would not likely be regarded as characters or figures in the context of the above provision. As such, this provision is also not likely to be applicable to settle the conflict of rights.

If trademark right arose first

Article 55 of Vietnam’s IP Law provides that a certificate of copyright registration can be invalidated if the certificate holder is not the real author/owner, or the registered work is ineligible for protection. As such, if it is discovered that the owner of a copyrighted logo copied that logo from another’s trademark (personal creation is a prerequisite for copyright), the certificate for such copyright could be invalidated. In reality, however, it is not easy to prove/conclude the act of copying, especially if the two logos are not identical. If the trademark owner cannot prove that the copyright holder copied its logo, the subsequent copyrighted logo can coexist with the trademarked logo.

Shortcomings of the law

It is clear that the law does not provide sufficient solutions to address the conflict of rights, leaving a loophole for sly infringers to purposely seek copyright protection for a logo as a defense against trademark infringement charges for their use of such logo.

As a result, registration and enforcement authorities face difficulties in handling conflicts between trademark and copyright in a consistent and appropriate manner. The NOIP, in one opposition proceeding, agreed with a copyright holder to refuse registration of a logo as a trademark on the grounds that it conflicted with an earlier established copyrighted logo. However, in a similar case where the copyright holder sought to invalidate a trademark registration based on its prior copyrighted logo, the NOIP rejected the request.

The Copyright Office of Vietnam (COV) may agree to invalidate a copyright certificate if a third party can successfully prove that the copyright holder copied rather than created its logo, but, as discussed above, proving the act of copying is extremely difficult, and often requires a court case. In one recent case, the COV refused to cancel a dubious copyright registration, the trademark holder who had created the logo sued in court, and the court ordered the registration to be canceled.

Recommendations

Until the law is revised to effectively settle the conflict of rights between trademark and copyright, IPR holders should consider obtaining registration for logos by both trademark and copyright regimes to maximize protection in Vietnam.

Although registration of a copyright with the COV is not mandatory for copyright protection, it is generally recommended since a certificate of copyright registration is useful prima facie evidence of ownership in conflicts and/or enforcement. Further, copyright protection requires no evidence of use to be maintained, while a trademark registration may be cancelled if the registered logo has not been used for five consecutive years. In addition, copyright is not limited by class of goods and services, so if a third party’s logo is used on goods or means of services which are not identical or similar to those bearing the registered trademark, copyright enforcement can possibly be applied where trademark protection fails.

Download Full Article
Related Professionals

Practices

Intellectual Property

Location

RELATED INSIGHTS​ 

August 28, 2026
When considering a franchise, many people first think of a restaurant, retail chain, or service outlet. From a legal perspective, however, the foundation of every franchise lies in the right to use a brand, which is typically granted through a trademark license. Trademarks are often the most valuable assets in a franchise system. Through a trademark license, a franchisor authorizes a franchisee to use its trademarks, logos, and branding while maintaining control over how the brand is presented to customers. The Role of Trademarks in Franchise Businesses Under the Trademark Law 2019, a mark is defined as a sign that is capable of distinguishing the goods or services of one undertaking from those of others in the course of trade. This distinguishing function is particularly important in a franchise arrangement, where the franchisee’s use of the franchisor’s trademark allows consumers to recognize the source, quality, and reputation of the business. In this way, trademarks help preserve brand identity, strengthen market recognition, and protect the commercial value of the franchise system. Legal Foundation for Franchise Brand Protection Myanmar presently does not have a specific statutory framework governing franchise arrangements. As a result, franchise agreements are generally regulated under the broader applicable legal framework, including the Contract Act 1872, the Trademark Law 2019, the Competition Law 2015, the Consumer Protection Law 2019, and the relevant implementing rules and regulations. The licensing of trademarks within a franchise arrangement is particularly governed by the Trademark Law 2019. Franchisors should ensure that the trademarks intended to be licensed to franchisees in Myanmar are registered under the Trademark Law 2019 and that the relevant trademark license is properly recorded with the Intellectual Property Department (IPD). Trademark License Recordal Under the Trademark Law 2019, the owner of a registered trademark may grant a license to another
Read More
August 27, 2026
It is generally understood that patents are granted for new designs that have not been widely known or used in Thailand and not been disclosed anywhere prior to the date of the patent application. It is trite law that design law protects the distinctive appearance or products. Under Section 3 of the Thai Patent Act B.E. 2522, as amended by the Patent Act (No. 2) B.E. 2535 and the Patent Act (No. 3) B.E. 2542, a design is defined as “any form or composition of lines or colors that gives a product a special appearance and can serve as a pattern for an industrial or handicraft product.” This raises an important question. Can a patent be issued for a product design that contains text, numerals, trademarks, or symbols that do not fall under the definition of a design? This issue commonly arises when attempting to register packaging, labels, and graphical user interfaces (GUIs). Until a few years ago, applicants could file design applications with the Thai Patent Office for designs that contained such elements, provided that an appropriate disclaimer was included. This practice was generally accepted by Thai design examiners at that time, but the Patent Office has since implemented a change in its practice that could have a significant impact on applicants for design patents. Where design representations are submitted as line drawings or computer-aided design (CAD) drawings, the examiner may now issue an office action requiring their removal. This practice, however, appears to be applied inconsistently, as some examiners still exercise their own discretion in determining whether drawings containing these elements are acceptable. Below are examples of a GUI design, a CAD drawing design, and a photographic design representation that illustrates issues relating to the presence of nonallowable elements. GUI design For this GUI design, the submitted
Read More
August 27, 2026
Franchising in Thailand has matured into a sizeable commercial sector, but the rules governing franchisor–franchisee relationships remain scattered across general legislation rather than consolidated in a dedicated franchise statute. In this environment, the decisions of the Trade Competition Commission of Thailand (TCCT) have emerged as valuable practical guidance. Thailand follows a civil-law system in which judicial and administrative decisions do not create binding precedent; however, past rulings are nonetheless influential. This article examines the most instructive recent TCCT decisions and distills the practical compliance considerations for franchisors and franchisees operating in Thailand. Postcontract Changes: Justified or Unfair? A recurring issue is whether a franchisor may alter the terms of engagement after contract execution. The TCCT has established that midterm modifications are not inherently unfair; the determinative factors are whether there was a reasonable business justification, adequate advance notice, and a transparent process. In a 2023 coffee franchise matter, for instance, the TCCT declined to find a violation where a franchisor increased raw material prices, noting the increase had been communicated in advance and supported by demonstrable cost pressures. A bubble tea franchise matter reinforces this principle. The TCCT found that postcontract mandatory purchases of branded syrup and flavorings were justified, as the agreement reserved the franchisor’s right to modify product requirements, the materials were sold at or below market prices, and the branded ingredients possessed distinctive qualities deemed essential to franchise quality. The complaint was dismissed, with the additional requirements characterized as a legitimate measure to preserve brand consistency. Considered together, these decisions indicate that post‑contract modifications will be evaluated against three criteria: (1) whether there is a legitimate business rationale, (2) whether adequate advance notice was provided, and (3) whether franchisees were treated equitably throughout the transition. Discriminatory Treatment: Are Renewals and Information Equal? A 2024 automotive dealership
Read More
August 20, 2026
As part of its membership in Lex Mundi, Tilleke & Gibbins has released the latest edition of its Guide to Doing Business in Thailand, providing an overview of the legal, regulatory, and commercial considerations for companies establishing or expanding operations in Thailand. The 2026 edition offers practical insight into the country’s business environment, investment framework, and operational requirements. The guide covers a wide range of topics relevant to foreign and domestic investors, including: Investment incentives and promotion schemes Financial facilities and banking regulations Exchange controls and money transfers Import and export regulations Business structures and incorporation options Requirements for establishing a business Operational and compliance considerations Business cessation and insolvency procedures Employment and labor laws Taxation Immigration and visa requirements Prepared by Tilleke & Gibbins lawyers across multiple practice areas, the publication outlines key aspects of doing business in Thailand, including foreign investment restrictions, regulatory compliance obligations, corporate structures, employment requirements, and recent legal and economic developments affecting investors. The publication forms part of Lex Mundi’s Country Guides series, a global collection of jurisdiction-specific reference materials prepared by member firms around the world. Together, these guides help companies evaluate opportunities, compare regulatory environments, and plan international business activities across multiple markets. The full Guide to Doing Business in Thailand 2026 is available through the button below.
Read More