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

October 20, 2024

Vietnam: Challenges in Recordal of Trademark Assignments

Subscribe to Updates
Managing Intellectual Property

The annual statistics issued by the Intellectual Property Office of Vietnam (“IP Office”) in recent years show an increase in the number of IP transactions and applications to establish IP rights, including requests for the recordal of assignment of IP rights. Nevertheless, the numbers of trademark assignment recordals approved by the IP Office has not followed this trend, falling from 1,281 requests approved in 2022 to 1,120 requests approved in 2023. This decrease may be due to the IP Office’s overly strict viewpoint in approving trademark assignments, including its rejection of assignment recordal on the ground of conflict with the assignor’s trade name.

IP Office’s practice on assignment recordal

Vietnam’s IP Law restricts the assignment of trademarks in several cases, as set out in Article 139.4 that “the assignment of the rights to marks must not cause confusion as to properties or origins of goods or services bearing such marks.” Thus, when an assigned mark is identical to the dominant element of the assignor’s company name, the IP Office will view that the assignee’s use of the mark will result in confusion with the assignor’s trade name, and then instantly reject the assignment request. In this case, the IP Office will only accept the assignment if the IP holder can submit documents issued by relevant authorities proving at least one of the following conditions:

  • The assignor has assigned all business premises and operations under its name to the assignee;
  • The assignor has removed business lines relating to the goods/services bearing the trademarks and such removal is recorded in the Enterprise Registration Certificate;
  • The assignor has been dissolved or does not exist after signing the agreement;
  • The assignor has changed its name after signing the agreement so that it does not contain any element identical or similar to the assigned trademarks; or
  • The assignor and the assignee are affiliated companies.

Without these documents, the assignment approval can be difficult to obtain. In many cases, the refusal of assignment recordal leads to very lengthy appeal proceedings at the IP Office’s Appeal Division if the parties wish to pursue the case.

Differing opinions on the IP Office’s practice

The provision on potential rejection of assignment due to conflict with the assignor’s trade name has been in place for years, and the IP Office has also refused assignment recordal if the assigned mark is identical or similar to the main element of the assignor’s name. However, in the past, if a rejection of trademark assignment recordal was issued on this ground, a declaration executed by the assignor attesting to the assignor’s non-use of the company name in Vietnam, attesting to the affiliate relationship between the assignor and assignee, or attesting to the assignor’s initiation of dissolution procedures was sufficient to overcome the rejection. Documents issued by the authorities were not required.

Nevertheless, the IP Office’s practice has changed in the past three years in that it now requires these documents, creating challenges for IP holders to overcome the assignment rejection on this ground. This change has led to many debates among IP practitioners, and even within the IP Office.

A common argument is that the rejection itself is not well-grounded. Under Vietnamese law, a company’s name does not become a trade name by default. According to Article 14.2 of Circular 11/2015/TT-BKHCN, a company name will only be considered a trade name if it is used in actual business activities and meets several conditions prescribed in Articles 76 and 78 of the IP Law (e.g., it is capable of distinguishing the business entity bearing it from other business entities operating in the same business field and locality). As such, the IP Office’s rejection of assignment recordal on grounds of conflicting with the assignor’s trade name, without evidence/information on the actual use of the assignor’s company name in Vietnam, appears to be unconvincing. Unfortunately, Circular 11 is no longer in effect, and a new circular to amend and supplement it is still pending.

Second, while the IP Law prevents a pending mark from being protected on the ground of likelihood of confusion with another party’s trade name, the author is not aware of any case where the IP Office ex officio issued a refusal on this ground, unless the pending mark was opposed by the trade name owners.

Third, the options to overcome the assignment rejection suggested by the IP Office, notably the requirement to submit documents issued by the authorities, seem unrealistic. For example, it is common for assignors filing for recordal of trademark assignment in Vietnam to be multinational companies with different business strategies for their marks in each market in which they operate. In this case, it is unreasonable to request them to change the company name, remove the eliminated business lines related to goods and services bearing the assigned mark, or assign to the assignee the entire business establishment and business activities, just for the purpose of recording the assignment of a single mark in Vietnam.

Even when the assignor and assignee are affiliated companies, it can be difficult to submit legal documents proving their relationship. In some cases, the assignor has carried out dissolution procedures after signing an IP assignment agreement, but can only be dissolved after fulfilling all its property obligations, including assignments of IP rights to the recipients. As this procedure takes time, the IP Office’s requirements for submitting legal documents proving the completion of dissolution seems unfeasible.

Recommendations

The amended IP Law issued in 2022 and taking effect on January 1, 2023, as well as its guiding Circular 23/2023/TT-BKHCN issued and taking immediate effect on November 30, 2023, have shed more light on the IP procedures. However, there is no clear provision or guidance on recordal of assigned marks that are identical to the assignor’s trade name in these legal documents.

At present, a draft version of the amended Circular 23 is open for public comments, and IP practitioners have recommended that the IP Office ease its requirements in cases where the assigned trademark is identical or similar to the assignor’s trade name. Specifically, the assignor’s declaration of its non-use of the company name, declaration attesting to the affiliate relationship between the assignor and the assignee, or evidence showing the assignor’s initiation of dissolution procedures should be viewed as sufficient to overcome the assignment rejection on this ground, as was accepted by the IP Office in the past.

In the future, a related rejection of assignment should only be issued if there are grounds to believe that the assignor’s company name is actually used in Vietnam and thus could be protected as a trade name.

This article first appeared in Managing Intellectual Property.

Related Professionals

Practices

Intellectual Property

Location

RELATED INSIGHTS​ 

July 21, 2026
Thailand’s Ministry of Digital Economy and Society (MDES) published a notification establishing an expedited court-ordered takedown mechanism for online content in cases of “urgent necessity.” The notification, which was issued on July 17, 2026, under the Computer Crime Act B.E. 2550 (2007), as amended, took effect the following day. It significantly expands the categories of content subject to rapid government-initiated removal. Content Categories Subject to Takedown The notification defines “urgent necessity” (section 20, paragraph 5, of the Computer Crime Act) as circumstances where any delay in suppressing computer data may impact national security, religion, the monarchy, good morals, social culture, or public order. In this regard, it establishes four broad categories of content: Computer Crime Act offenses. National security offenses. IP and other criminal offenses, where it is contrary to public order or good morals and a competent officer has requested its suppression. Content contrary to public order or good morals, a broad residual category encompassing 14 subcategories approved by the Computer Data Screening Committee. The fourth category is the most expansive. Its 14 subcategories include: Content defaming, mocking, satirizing, or devaluing the monarchy. Online gambling advertising or facilitation. Offering illegal firearms for sale. Offering baraku (hookah) products or e-cigarettes for sale. Offering cannabis inflorescences or processed cannabis products for sale. Advertising or soliciting prostitution. Content inciting violence, hatred, or social division. Unauthorized overseas employment advertising. Offering boiled kratom juice for sale. Online sale or advertising of alcoholic beverages. Content satirizing or degrading Buddhism. Money lending at interest rates exceeding legally prescribed limits. Advertising or disseminating information about surrogacy services. Forgery of documents, cards, or official documents. Enforcement Procedure In cases of urgent necessity, a competent official assigned by the MDES permanent secretary must file a petition with supporting evidence to the court with jurisdiction, requesting an order to
Read More
July 15, 2026
Ambush marketing refers to a strategy in which a business associates itself with an event, campaign, or brand without paying for official sponsorship rights. The tactic is most visible in sports, concerts, and festivals, where official sponsors have invested substantially for exclusivity. Ambush marketers may use suggestive wording, event-themed imagery, athlete endorsements, venue-adjacent promotions, or social media campaigns implying a commercial connection with the event. Common Forms of Ambush Marketing Ambush marketing typically takes one of the following forms: Direct ambushing: using event names, logos, or mascots suggesting authorization Coattail ambushing: sponsoring an athlete or broadcaster connected with the event Subtle ambushing: themed advertising, venue-adjacent campaigns, or similar visual cues The legal analysis in each case turns on whether the marketing crosses from permissible event-based advertising into infringement, passing off, deception, or wrongful exploitation of goodwill, and the risk assessment is necessarily fact-specific. Thailand has no dedicated ambush marketing statute, so legality depends on execution. A campaign that merely comments on a public event may be permissible, but one that uses protected marks, creates consumer confusion, misrepresents sponsorship status, or makes unsubstantiated claims may trigger liability under various Thai laws, as laid out below. Ambush Marketing and Thailand’s Trademark Act The Trademark Act B.E. 2534 (1991) is the primary tool for addressing campaigns that use registered trademarks, event names, logos, mascots, or confusingly similar signs. The law gives registered trademark owners the exclusive right to use their mark for registered goods, and infringement risk arises when a nonsponsor uses an event mark or a confusingly similar sign in advertising. Even referential or playful use may create liability if it causes public confusion as to sponsorship or commercial connection. The law also preserves passing-off claims for unregistered marks. This matters because event names, taglines, or mascots may not always be
Read More
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