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​ 

October 3, 2025
In Thailand, the rise in online intellectual property infringement has prompted authorities to strengthen enforcement efforts, including the use of website-blocking orders under Section 20(3) of the Computer Crime Act B.E. 2560 (2017) (CCA). This provision authorizes the Ministry of Digital Economy and Society (MDES), with court approval, to block or remove computer data that constitutes a criminal offence under IP law. Since its implementation, the procedure has undergone several developments, which is an encouraging sign of progress. Website-blocking procedure In practice, website-blocking orders under Section 20(3) of the CCA are primarily used for copyright and trademark infringement. While such orders are legally applicable to patent infringement, their use remains challenging due to the difficulty of proving infringement through administrative procedures. The website-blocking procedure begins when an IP owner identifies online infringing content. For copyright infringement, which is considered a compoundable offence, the IP owner is required to first file a police report with the specialized police unit known as the Economic Crime Suppression Division (ECD) prior to filing the website-blocking application with the Department of Intellectual Property (DIP). For trademark infringement cases, the application can be filed directly with the DIP without a prior police report. The DIP reviews the evidence and, if infringement is confirmed, forwards it to the MDES for further consideration. If the case is deemed valid, the MDES requests a court order to block the infringing website. Once granted, the MDES notifies the internet service providers (ISPs) to block access to the specified website. Website blocking procedure in Thailand Recent advancements in website-blocking actions Seamless collaboration through digital integration. Thailand has made significant progress in digitizing its website-blocking procedures to improve efficiency and transparency. At present, all website-blocking applications and supporting evidence must be submitted in electronic format. These systems have significantly reduced processing
Read More
September 24, 2025
Online shopping in Thailand is more accessible than ever, with global platforms, local social media shops, and entertainment-driven social commerce enabling instant purchases. However, this convenience comes with rising concerns over digital intellectual property (IP) infringement, including counterfeit goods, pirated content, and unauthorized brand usage. At first glance, online platforms appear to offer quick solutions. Most major e-commerce sites, social media channels, and social commerce platforms provide “notice and takedown” systems, where IP owners can file complaints and request the removal of listings that infringe IP rights, such as trademarks and copyrights. These tools are certainly useful, as seeing a fake product vanish from a platform feels like progress. But the reality is less reassuring. The counterfeit goods themselves remain in warehouses, markets, or shops, ready to be resold. Sellers whose accounts are taken down often return within days under new names or accounts. In other words, a takedown is like cutting weeds without pulling out the roots: they always grow back. While notice and takedown tools are widely available and can be managed internally by most IP owners, their impact is often short-lived. IP owners seeking more effective, lasting protection need to take a more strategic and multilayered approach. The same applies to online piracy. Unauthorized streaming websites that offer free access to movies, TV shows, or sports broadcasts have become widespread in Thailand. To combat this, rightsholders can request website blocking under the Computer Crime Act, through the Ministry of Digital Economy and Society and the courts. Once requests are approved, internet service providers are ordered to block access to infringing sites. Blocking orders can be effective in disrupting large-scale piracy operations, but they also face limitations—pirate sites frequently reappear under new domains. Strategic Protection Whether the infringing material is physical counterfeit goods or intangible streaming content,
Read More
September 4, 2025
On June 6, 2025, the Superior People’s Court in Hanoi overturned a non-use cancellation decision by the Intellectual Property Office of Vietnam, a rare and impactful occurrence. In a ruling that may help clarify the enforcement of Vietnam’s IP Law, the court held that valid trademark use can be established through commercial arrangements where the brand owner maintains actual control over the use of the mark, and is not confined to relationships governed by a so-called “formal license agreement. Background: Cross-Border Use, Local Challenge A Singapore company owns a well-known brand of consumer products that has gained recognition across Southeast Asia. In recent years, the brand has been targeted by several unauthorized trademark filings in Vietnam. In one such instance, a local Vietnamese trading company—previously linked to the production and export of counterfeit goods to neighboring countries—filed a non-use cancellation against the Singapore company’s mark and sought to register it under its own name. If the cancellation had been upheld, it would have enabled a complete hijacking of the brand. The IP holder operates in Vietnam through a structured cross-border supply chain. Under an agreement between two related foreign entities, one of which managed regional operations, production orders were placed through a designated Vietnamese company. While the Vietnamese manufacturer was not a party to the agreement, its role in using the mark was recognized and governed by internal and commercial documentation. The Vietnamese manufacturer lawfully obtained the necessary permits, regulatory approvals, and customs clearances for producing the goods in Vietnam. These activities were supported by banking records and internal communications, evidencing active, continuous use of the mark in Vietnam. However, the IP Office concluded that this use did not meet the statutory criteria because the Vietnamese manufacturer did not have a direct license agreement with the brand owner, as
Read More
August 25, 2025
Indonesia’s current regulations on franchises, as stipulated under Government Regulation No. 35/2024 on Franchising and its implementing regulation, Ministry of Trade (MOT) Regulation No. 71/2019 regarding Implementation of Franchising, highlight fundamental changes in franchise registration. These changes have introduced additional complexities and challenges in the franchise registration procedure, making it more difficult for franchise owners to navigate the process. New procedure Franchise applications are still submitted through the Online Single Submission (OSS) portal of the Capital Investment Coordinating Board (BKPM). However, the new procedure requires each applicant, including foreign franchisors, to have an OSS account and a business registration number (NIB) issued by BKPM. An application for franchise registration must be submitted under the applicant’s own account—submissions can no longer be made through the account of a consultant. Once a franchise application is submitted, the authority will distribute the submission to the MOT—the authorized ministry for franchise registration. Any notification or decision upon the registration made by the MOT will be available in the OSS system. Applicants should regularly monitor the status of the franchise application because no notifications will be sent to applicants to alert them of any deficiency. Here is the summary of the new procedure for franchisors: Notable Requirements The disclosure document, or prospectus, is the key focus for the MOT in examining a franchise registration for a franchisor. This document is subject to thorough scrutiny by the MOT to ensure that all mandatory information meets the requirements set in the franchise regulations. The current regulations specifically require that the mandatory clause “business system” in the prospectus cover operational standards and procedures, which should include human resource management, administration, operational management, standard operating methods, business location selection, business premises design, employee requirements, and marketing strategies. Other clauses that are equally important to pay attention to are:
Read More