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​ 

December 17, 2025
Vietnam’s National Assembly approved wide-ranging amendments to the Intellectual Property (IP) Law on December 10, 2025, marking one of the most significant overhauls of the country’s IP regime in recent years. The changes, which supplement and refine existing provisions, are designed to align Vietnam’s framework more closely with international standards while addressing practical challenges faced by rights holders and practitioners. The amendments will come into force on April 1, 2026. The most notable changes are detailed below. Recognition of partial and nonphysical industrial designs: Industrial design protection has been broadened to cover partial designs and nonphysical forms (class 32), explicitly extending rights to parts of products that are not independently circulated as well as digital and intangible product appearances. The law clarifies that the external appearances of nonphysical products are protected industrial designs, and circulation of digital copies of any part of that appearance will be treated as an act of using the industrial design. The provision on the industrial applicability of industrial designs has also been amended accordingly to include the uniform reproduction of nonphysical products in cyberspace. Resolving conflicts between overlapping rights: The IP Law provides a safeguard against conflicts when a single subject matter is protected by multiple IP rights. Where overlapping rights exist, the later-arising right will be terminated if its exercise interferes with the normal exploitation of an earlier right. The decision to terminate such a later right rests with the court. Use of published data for AI training: Organizations and individuals may use lawfully published and publicly accessible documents and data for scientific research, testing, and AI system training. Such use must not unreasonably prejudice the rights or legitimate interests of authors or IP rights holders. Where the documents and data fall under copyright or related rights protection, their use must also comply
Read More
December 5, 2025
One morning, a California-based company mapping its Southeast Asia rollout opened an unexpected cease-and-desist letter from a Vietnamese IP firm. To the company’s surprise, the letter asserted that a local client already owned the company’s brand in Vietnam and threatened legal action. This is not an isolated incident. In another recent matter in the sports industry, a squatter demanded at least USD 48,000 from our client to “resolve” a similar conflict. For brands entering Vietnam or expanding distribution there, these tactics can create acute risk at precisely the point at which market momentum is building. Vietnam’s rapid economic growth and deepening integration into global trade have made it an increasingly attractive destination for multinational brands. Those same dynamics have intensified a longstanding issue: trademark squatting. Vietnam has modernized its IP framework over the past decade, but its strict first-to-file trademark system continues to incentivize opportunistic filings by parties with no legitimate interest in a mark. As more foreign brands build their reputation abroad before turning to Vietnam, squatters remain alert to timing gaps and enforcement frictions. The First-to-File System: Advantages and Vulnerabilities Vietnam adheres closely to the first-to-file principle under its Law on Intellectual Property. In practice, exclusive trademark rights belong to whoever submits the earliest valid application to the Vietnam Intellectual Property Office, regardless of prior use in Vietnam. This approach offers administrative clarity and reduces evidentiary burdens compared to use-based jurisdictions. Yet it also creates fertile conditions for squatting. Bad-faith actors regularly monitor foreign markets, identify brands gaining traction, and move quickly to register those marks domestically, often long before the genuine owner enters the market or prioritizes local filings. By the time the true brand seeks protection, the squatter’s application (or registration) stands as a legal obstacle, pushing businesses toward costly oppositions, cancellations, or uncomfortable negotiations
Read More
November 26, 2025
On November 21, 2025, Myanmar’s Ministry of Commerce (MOC) issued Notification No. 103/2025 promulgating the Geographical Indication Rules (GI Rules), establishing a comprehensive framework for the registration and administration of geographical indications (GI), which are primarily governed by the Trademark Law of 2019. On the same day, the MOC released Notification No. 104/2025 specifying the required forms for GI-related matters. The GI Rules establish a comprehensive set of procedures for the entire GI application process, including filing applications, oppositions, cancellations, and invalidations, and appointing a local representative for GI-related matters. Under the Trademark Law and the GI Rules, domestic and foreign legal entities (organizations) that formally represent a defined group of stakeholders (such as producers or manufacturers of natural products or resources, agricultural products, handicrafts, or industrial products) and other competent authorities from government departments are eligible to apply for GI registration with the Intellectual Property Department (IPD) in Myanmar. Application A GI application can be submitted in either English or Myanmar language electronically, in person, or via post. Foreign applicants seeking to register a GI in Myanmar are required to submit a copy of the registration certificate from their country of origin with the GI application. This certificate must explicitly state the GI name of the protected product. Notably, foreign applicants are mandated to appoint a local representative in Myanmar to act on their behalf for GI-related matters with the IPD and appeal-related matters with the IP Agency. The form for appointing the local representative must be duly notarized in the applicant’s home country to ensure its legal validity and acceptance in accordance with the GI Rules. Application for Use of GI Logo Pursuant to the GI Rules, any interested individual, local or foreign, may submit an application to the IPD for authorization to use the GI logo,
Read More
November 21, 2025
Tilleke & Gibbins has contributed the Thailand chapter to Asia IP’s ASEAN Guide to IP Protection 2025, an annual reference covering key developments and practical considerations for intellectual property systems across Southeast Asia. The chapter offers an overview of Thailand’s current legal framework for the protection of trademarks, patents, industrial designs, and copyrights. It summarizes registration requirements, recent regulatory updates, and procedural considerations relevant to rights holders and practitioners. The chapter offers actionable insights for rights holders at every stage of the IP lifecycle and addresses practical strategies for managing portfolios, anticipating enforcement challenges, and maximizing the value of IP assets. The authors also highlight recent trends and developments in Thai IP law, ensuring that readers are equipped with the latest knowledge to inform their decisions. The complete Thailand chapter can be downloaded through the button below, and the chapter is also available on the Asia IP website.
Read More