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

June 29, 2017

Vietnam: Bad Faith Trademark Filings

Subscribe to Updates
Managing Intellectual Property

Bad faith trademark filings are not uncommon in Vietnam. In fact, bad faith is often included under the label of “dishonesty basis” as a ground for opposition or cancellation of a trademark application/registration. Generally speaking, bad faith is deemed to occur when an applicant intentionally registers a trademark to benefit from the goodwill and reputation associated with the trademark of another owner. Some notable issues of bad faith trademark filings in Vietnam are discussed below.

Criteria for Determining Bad Faith

The criteria for determining bad faith are not specified in any relevant statutory provisions. However, the notion of bad faith trademark filings is shown in court rulings as well as in decisions of competent authorities like the National Office of Intellectual Property (NOIP) and the Ministry of Science and Technology (MOST). Typical examples of bad faith trademark filings in Vietnam include:

  • An applicant files for registration of a trademark that is identical or confusingly similar to a well-known trademark with the intention of preventing the owner of such well-known trademark from entering the Vietnam market.
  • An applicant files for registration of a well-known trademark with no intention of using it, but for the sole purpose of benefiting from the sale, licensing, or transfer of the registration to the rightful owner of the well-known trademark.
  • An applicant simply wishes to profit from the reputation of a well-known trademark.

Many of the criteria for determining bad faith which are recognized as best practices in the INTA Resolution on Bad Faith are not yet recognized in Vietnam. For example, the warehousing of trademarks and related domain names, or the copying of very striking or unique logos or trade dress is often not considered bad faith.

Strategies to Address Bad Faith Applications

In Vietnam, proving the applicant’s knowledge of the pre-existence of a trademark is crucial in showing bad faith. However, in practice, proof of such prior knowledge can be very difficult to obtain if the applicant keeps denying any knowledge of the prior trademark, or the trademark applied for in bad faith is confusingly similar but not identical to the prior trademark. Therefore, the best strategy is to obtain incontestable proof showing prior knowledge, which is a document evidencing that there was once a business relationship/cooperation experience between the applicant and the rights holder, such as a contract signed between the two parties, payment vouchers, etc.

In addition to citing evidence of prior knowledge, rights holders can also focus on the lack of intent to use the mark to strengthen bad faith arguments. In other words, rights holders can prove that the applicant is requesting trademark protection for certain goods/services but, in practice, as well as in terms of long-term business strategy, the applicant does not manufacture or trade in such goods/services. This helps show that the applicant might be registering the mark just to disrupt the rights holder’s business activities, to prevent the rights holder from acquiring its trademark rights, or to sell, license, or otherwise transfer the mark to the rights holder.

Specifically, evidence showing the applicant’s lack of intent to use the mark might include:

  • Applicant’s lack of documentary or other objective evidence that it can/will use the mark;
  • Applicant’s lack of capacity or experience needed to manufacture or trade in the goods/services bearing the mark;
  • No licensing of the mark;
  • Failure to take any concrete actions or to develop any concrete plans for use;
  • Applicant’s pattern of filing for marks which were then not put into use.

Where appropriate, rights holders may also consider mentioning multiple filings by the applicant if the applicant has a history of filing for marks that are similar to other well-known trademarks.

Tips for Rights Holders

Trademark owners can take steps to discourage the practice of bad faith trademark filings:

Filing for trademark registration:  Vietnam adopts the first-to-file principle, which grants exclusive trademark rights to the first party that applies for registration of the mark. Therefore, filing for trademark registration in Vietnam as soon as possible will help rights holders prevent bad faith trademark applications from maturing to registrations. Further, the cost for registering a trademark is much lower than the cost to pursue an opposition or cancellation against a confusingly similar or identical mark applied for in bad faith.

Keeping a close watch on the IP Gazette:  After passing the formality examination, a trademark application is published in the monthly IP Gazette issued by the NOIP. Keeping a close watch on the IP Gazette will help rights holders detect any mark that might be applied for in bad faith. Rights holders could then file an opposition against such mark before it matures into registration. Once the mark has been registered, rights holders have no choice but to file for cancellation of the mark applied for in bad faith. In practice, pursuing a cancellation case is much more expensive and time-consuming than an opposition case, and the chance of success is very low.

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