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

July 22, 2016

Vietnam: New Guidance on Infringing Enterprise Names

Subscribe to Updates
Managing Intellectual Property

On April 5, 2016, the Ministry of Science and Technology (MOST) and the Ministry of Planning and Investment (MPI) issued Joint Circular 05/2016/TTLT-BKHCN-BKHDT providing details and guidance on the handling of cases where enterprise names infringe upon industrial property rights. The new joint circular, which came into effect on May 20, is the first official regulation ever issued on this subject in Vietnam, and is expected to prevent circumstances in which names of companies are identical or confusingly similar to protected intellectual property objects of unassociated IP holders, and aim to take advantage of the IP holders’ reputations.

Change and Removal of Infringing Elements

The joint circular clarifies that enterprises that use names containing elements which infringe other holders’ trademarks, geographical indications, or trade names, and which use those names on goods, means of business or service, signboards, or business transaction papers, will commit industrial property infringement. An infringer will be requested to terminate the use of the name, or conduct procedures to change its name or business lines. If the company does not voluntarily comply, the change can be forced. Further noncompliance can lead to the revocation of the company’s Business Registration Certificate.

Under the new provisions, whether an enterprise name infringes upon industrial property rights is determined by competent enforcement authorities or individuals empowered to impose administrative sanctions in accordance with the Law on Intellectual Property. This takes the form of a written conclusion on infringement which can be either: (1) the conclusion of an inspection by a competent enforcement authority or (2) a decision on administrative sanctions by a competent individual which requests the enterprise to change its name or remove infringing elements from its name.

When a written conclusion on infringement is issued in the form of a conclusion of an inspection, the IP holder and the infringer will have 30 days from the date of the conclusion to negotiate and settle their dispute. If no settlement can be reached through negotiation, the IP holder will be entitled to petition the Business Registration Office (BRO) to demand a change in the infringer’s name within two months. After that, if the infringer has not conducted the name-changing procedures, the BRO will be responsible to bring the case before competent enforcement authorities in the field of planning and investment and competent authorities for examination and inspection in accordance with IP laws.

Although this procedure contains some specific steps, it does not completely address how to resolve incidents that have passed the two-month time limit mentioned above. After being informed by the BRO, the competent authorities will examine and inspect the infringer, and are able to issue sanctions with remedies forcing the infringer to change its enterprise name or remove infringing elements from the name. These sanctions then open the case to further possibilities.

Revocation of Business Registration Certificate

Competent authorities are able to issue sanctions requiring a change in an enterprise’s name or the removal of infringing elements from a name with or without a notice from the BRO. Accordingly, infringers will have to change their names within 60 days from the effective date of the sanctions. If the infringers do not comply with the given remedies, the authorities will cooperate with the BRO in order to handle the cases.

The BRO will issue a notice to the infringers requesting them to report and explain the case, in accordance with the Enterprise Law. If neither report nor explanation is submitted on time, the competent authorities in the field of planning and investment will be responsible to handle the administrative violations of the infringers. Notably, if the infringer does not respond within six months, the BRO will revoke its Business Registration Certificate.

It should be noted, however, that the revocation of  Business Registration Certificate is only permitted under the Enterprise Law if a report is not submitted upon request. It is difficult for the BRO to deal with circumstances in which infringers send back their reports on time, and it is unclear under the law how such cases should be handled. Faced with such situations, the joint circular still raises concerns in relation to revocation of Business Registration Certificates on the basis of IP infringement alone.

In addition to the introduction of detailed procedures with specific timeframes, the joint circular sets out the responsibilities of and requires cooperation among competent authorities in the handling of disputes between enterprise names and IP rights. Although it leaves some uncertainty in the process of handling infringing names, Joint Circular 05 is a groundbreaking regulation for the time being.

Download Full Article
Related Professionals

Practices

Intellectual Property

Location

RELATED INSIGHTS​ 

June 24, 2026
Patent enablement requirements are provided under Article 102 of Vietnam’s Law on Intellectual Property (IP Law). In particular, a patent specification must “fully and clearly disclose the nature of the invention to such an extent that, based on the specification, a person having ordinary skill in the relevant art can implement the invention.” In pharmaceutical and biotechnology patents, this requirement is more complicated and subject to more rigorous assessment. The Patent Examination Guidelines (Guidelines) of the Intellectual Property Office of Vietnam (IP Office) were amended in March 2026 to introduce Annexes III and IV for the pharmaceutical and biotechnology sectors, in which Annex III provides detailed guidelines on the assessment of specification requirements. These amendments were made under a project for strengthening capacity in industrial property examination between the Japan International Cooperation Agency (JICA) and the IP Office. Annex III provides detailed instructions on how examiners assess enablement in a pharmaceutical or biotechnology application, and offers examples of acceptable and unacceptable descriptions with regard to the enablement aspect. Enablement Requirements in Pharma and Biotech Patents Article 12.7 of Circular 10/2026/TT-BKHCN (Circular 10) adds to the requirements of Article 102 of the IP Law that the description must demonstrate the novelty, inventive step, and industrial applicability of the technical solution. For pharmaceutical composition subject matters, Article 12.9 of Circular 10 sets out that the description must present the results of clinical trials and/or the pharmacological effects of the claimed pharmaceutical composition, and must include at least the following information: Substance/mixture used. Testing method (system) employed. Information on the test results. Correlation between the pharmacological effects obtained from the tests and the application of the pharmaceutical product in the prevention, diagnosis, and treatment of diseases. The Guidelines note that pharmacological study results should be presented in a quantified manner, and pharmacological
Read More
June 16, 2026
Since the implementation of the Trademark Law 2019 on April 1, 2023, Myanmar has operated under a modern first-to-file trademark system that brings its registration framework closer to international practice. As the new regime continues to develop in practice, applicants are increasingly required to navigate formal examination requirements, substantive objections, and procedural deadlines with greater precision. This article provides a high-level review of the trademark examination process in Myanmar, focusing on the principal stages from initial review to approval, the types of objections commonly raised by the Intellectual Property Department (IPD), and the key considerations for responding effectively. A clear understanding of these issues is essential for applicants seeking to secure registration efficiently and to mitigate avoidable delays or refusals. Examination Process: Key Stages Trademark applications filed with the IPD undergo two stages of review. Formality Examination The IPD first verifies compliance with procedural requirements, including: Correct Nice Classification Clear mark representation Accurate applicant details Clearly defined goods or services Representative details, if the application is filed by a representative Other formality requirements cover translation and transliteration of any non-English or non-Myanmar elements in the mark, color claim details, applicable disclaimers, and payment of official fees. Deficiencies result in an office action requiring correction within 30 days, which may be extended upon request. Registrability Examination The IPD also assesses registrability. A mark may be refused if it: Lacks distinctiveness Is descriptive or generic Misleads the public or violates public order/morality Contains prohibited state symbols Only compliant applications proceed to publication. Responding to Office Actions Applicants must respond within 30 days of notification from the IPD. Depending on the nature of the objection, strategies may include submitting legal arguments for distinctiveness, providing evidence of acquired distinctiveness, filing appropriate disclaimers, clarifying descriptions such as color claims, or amending the listed goods
Read More
June 15, 2026
The surge in AI development has led to a desperate demand for large, high-quality training data. However, real-world data can be expensive to collect, difficult to access, and often subject to strict privacy and regulatory constraints. Synthetic data, which consists of artificially generated records that replicate the statistical properties of real-world data without reproducing specific individuals’ information, provides an appealing solution by generating artificial datasets at scale without relying on identifiable personal information. It combines speed, cost efficiency, and regulatory compliance, making it a sensible alternative for organizations seeking to reduce risks while maintaining data utility. When properly anonymized, synthetic datasets may fall outside the scope of laws such as the EU’s General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR) or Thailand’s Personal Data Protection Act (PDPA), reducing compliance burdens while still supporting high-quality model training. However, relying on synthetic data without rigorous legal due diligence could be a strategic mistake. It replaces one set of known risks (scraping, direct privacy liability) with a new set of complex liabilities. The narrative that synthetic data is a “silver bullet” for privacy and IP compliance is dangerous and could be misleading. While synthetic data addresses data scarcity, it also introduces new legal uncertainties. Legal counsel should anticipate downstream risks arising from compromised data sources. Models trained on unlawfully obtained data may need to be decommissioned, even if their outputs appear lawful. What is synthetic data? Synthetic data refers to artificially generated information created using AI techniques such as deep learning and generative models. Instead of copying real records, it reproduces the statistical patterns and relationships found in the original dataset. Synthetic data generally falls into three categories: Fully synthetic data – Entirely new data points generated from learned patterns. The model studies the structure of the original data and produces records that resemble real-world
Read More
June 10, 2026
In March 2026, the Intellectual Property Office of Vietnam (IP Office) issued a decision refusing a trademark application after considering an opposition based primarily on copyright grounds. The outcome is noteworthy because the foreign brand owner had neither trademark registrations nor applications in Vietnam at the time the opposition was filed, and the IP Office has historically applied a stringent approach to oppositions relying on copyright. The Opposition Maurten is a well-known Swedish sports nutrition brand recognized globally for its innovative hydrogel technology, which is designed to help endurance athletes fuel more effectively without gastrointestinal discomfort. The brand’s distinctive logo is characterized by clean lines and a bold black-and-white color scheme, and has long been associated with the company’s performance products. The brand’s logo is displayed above. An identical mark was filed for registration by a Vietnamese trademark squatter. In 2023, a Vietnamese individual filed an application for registration of an identical mark (Application No. 4-2023-38668), a practice commonly observed in Vietnam as trademark squatting. The brand owner engaged Tilleke & Gibbins to assist with strategy and filing an opposition to the mark. At the time, Maurten had no trademark rights or meaningful use in Vietnam, and global marketing data showed only modest figures without any local presence. Thus, to convince the IP Office to refuse the squatter’s application, instead of relying on trademark rights or use evidence, the opposition strategy centered on the copyright protection of the logo itself, as copyright arises automatically in Vietnam upon creation of the work and does not require registration. (It is worth noting, however, that the IP Office has traditionally been cautious in accepting copyright as a basis for refusing trademark applications.) On September 24, 2024, an opposition was filed on three main grounds: confusing similarity, copyright infringement of the artistic work,
Read More