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​ 

July 13, 2026
When Decree No. 186/2026/ND-CP (Decree 186) takes effect on July 15, 2026, it will introduce the most significant reform of Vietnam’s administrative IP enforcement framework since Decree 99/2013/ND-CP was issued in 2013. These changes are expected to make administrative enforcement faster, more accessible, and better suited to the realities of modern IP disputes. Below are the principal reforms and their practical implications for rights holders and enforcement practitioners. The End of Notarization and Consular Legalization Among the most welcome procedural changes is the abolition of the notarization and consular legalization requirement for powers of attorney (POA) submitted in administrative enforcement proceedings. Under the previous regime, foreign rights holders were generally required to execute a POA, then have it notarized and consular legalized (if seeking customs recordal). In practice, this process frequently delayed enforcement by four to eight weeks, often long enough for infringing goods to disappear before authorities could intervene. Decree 186 removes this bottleneck, now requiring only an original or certified copy of the POA. If the document is in a foreign language, a Vietnamese translation is sufficient, provided it is certified by a competent authority or confirmed by the authorized Vietnamese IP representative. Consular legalization and notarization are no longer required. For rights holders, the practical impact is substantial. Administrative enforcement files that previously took weeks to prepare can now be completed in a matter of days, allowing much faster responses in time-sensitive matters such as warehouse raids, border interventions, and trade-fair enforcement. The decree also introduces a useful administrative simplification. Where an original POA has already been submitted to the same enforcement authority and remains valid, applicants may rely on a copy of that earlier submission by identifying the previous case file. This eliminates unnecessary duplication for rights holders pursuing multiple enforcement actions before the same
Read More
July 9, 2026
Recycling, upcycling, and refill-packaging models are now widely promoted as ways to reduce waste, lower carbon emissions, and respond to consumer demand for sustainable products. However, complications arise when these environmentally driven trends intersect with intellectual property law—particularly where reused or altered packaging continues to display third parties’ registered trademarks. Adding to this complexity, Thailand’s draft Sustainable Packaging Management Act aims to introduce new environmental compliance obligations that businesses must navigate alongside existing trademark concerns. Recycling and upcycling packaging may infringe trademark rights, especially in cases not protected by the first-sale doctrine—the principle that a trademark owner’s rights over a particular mark-bearing product end once the owner first sells it. Furthermore, even refill packaging carries legal risk due to specific statutory prohibitions under Thai law. Compounding these challenges, the draft Sustainable Packaging Management Act will impose extended producer responsibility (EPR) obligations on manufacturers and brand owners, requiring them to manage packaging throughout its lifecycle. These overlapping legal frameworks could deter manufacturers from pursuing ESG-aligned business models unless businesses understand how to navigate both trademark and environmental requirements. Under Thai law, this issue remains uncertain because the Trademark Act does not expressly codify the first sale doctrine, also known as the exhaustion of trademark rights. Generally, this doctrine provides that once a trademark owner has lawfully sold goods bearing its trademark, the owner’s right to control further resale of those particular goods is exhausted. The rationale is that the owner has already received commercial benefit from the first authorized sale; therefore, the purchaser should be free to resell or otherwise dispose of the goods. Although the doctrine is not expressly codified in the Trademark Act, Thai courts have recognized it in relation to genuine goods and parallel imports, as seen in a Supreme Court Judgment No. 2817/2543 in which the
Read More
July 6, 2026
Indonesia’s regulation on reporting online intellectual property (IP) infringement provides comprehensive procedural guidance for IP rights holders and their licensees in reporting online infringement complaints. Issued in December 2025 by the Ministry of Law as Regulation No. 47 of 2025 regarding Handling of Intellectual Property Infringement Reports in Electronic Systems, this regulation covers all types of IP rights. It also specifies documentation when reporting infringement, and lays out the procedures for examination, verification, and enforcement actions. Submission of Complaints Complainants may submit reports through the online system of the Directorate General of Intellectual Property (DGIP) or in person at the DGIP office. Complaints may also be filed through an authorized proxy. Under the regulation, complainants are required to provide the following information and documents: Personal details of the complainant; Brief description of the protected work or subject matter (i.e., type of IP and name or address of the infringing website, portal, account, or application, or a link to the location of the infringing content); Complete description of the alleged infringement; Certificate of registration or recordal of the relevant IP; Recordal of IP license agreement, if any; and Other supporting evidence. Verification and Examination Process Upon receiving a complaint, the responsible formality officer may request clarification or additional supporting documents. In the latter case, the complainant must then submit the necessary administrative documents within 14 days of the notification date. Once the documentation is deemed complete and sufficient, the case will be formally registered. Subsequently, the DGIP will establish a verification team to handle online IP violations, which will include the Civil Servant Investigator (PPNS), the Ministry of Communication and Digital Affairs, experts with relevant expertise in IP, and representatives from related associations such as AVISI (Indonesian Video Streaming Association). After examining the report, the team will prepare the Minutes
Read More
June 30, 2026
Customs recordation is an enforcement mechanism in Myanmar that enables intellectual property (IP) rights holders to seek prevention of the cross-border movement of infringing goods. The enactment of Myanmar’s IP laws in 2019 has enabled customs recordation for registered marks and copyrights under the Trademark Law 2019 and the Copyright Law 2019. By contrast, the Patent Law 2019 and the Industrial Design Law 2019 do not provide a practical framework for customs recordation, and accordingly such rights are not subject to the customs recordation regime. Under the Trademark Law 2019, rights holders may apply for customs recordation and may also ask the Customs Department to suspend the release of goods suspected of bearing counterfeit marks. Likewise, the Copyright Law 2019 allows for customs intervention in relation to pirated works. These provisions reflect Myanmar’s gradual alignment with international standards on border measures, although the implementation framework remains at a relatively early stage of development. Customs Recordation Pursuant to the Trademark Law 2019 and the Copyright Law 2019, the relevant authorities have issued customs rules concerning the protection of registered marks and copyrights. In practice, the process generally begins with the submission of an application to the Customs Department together with supporting documentation. This typically includes proof of registration in Myanmar; details of the rights holder, applicant, and any authorized representative; and a comprehensive description of the genuine goods. Product identification materials—such as photographs, packaging samples, and distinguishing features—are particularly important in helping customs officers identify suspected infringing goods. A recordation remains valid for two years from the date of approval. It may be renewed for additional two-year terms, provided that the renewal application is filed within the thirty days prior to expiry for marks and up to thirty days in advance of the expiry date for copyrights, in accordance with
Read More