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

November 23, 2021

Vietnam: The Registrability of Media-Hype and Sensational Marks

Subscribe to Updates
Managing Intellectual Property

Given the highly polarized state of U.S. politics, one may find it difficult to imagine a scenario where Donald Trump and Joe Biden appear together outside of a debate stage. Surprisingly, these names were united on a Vietnamese trademark application filed during the heat of the U.S. presidential election in 2020.

This “TRUMP-BIDEN” mark was filed for food, beverages, and restaurants in Classes 29, 30 and 43 — items with no link to the two presidents. The only reason for such filing, obviously, was to gain consumers’ attention and to ride a wave of popularity, although in a rather unusual way.

Attention-seeking entrepreneurs are often inspired by celebrities and recent events when seeking new brand names and slogans. They may attempt to register their ideas as trademarks while the influence of the person or event is still strong. Others take a different but similarly sensational approach, crafting marks loaded with double entendre with the hope of sneaking past the gatekeepers.

While the idea of registering celebrity-driven or sensational marks may be beneficial for business, is it possible under Vietnam’s IP laws?

Famous People’s Names

In addition to the TRUMP-BIDEN mark mentioned above, a quick search on the public database of the IP Office of Vietnam reveals several dozen “TRUMP” marks, with most of them filed after Donald Trump’s inauguration in 2017. The IP Office’s decisions have shown that marks explicitly referring to the former president (such as the full-name trademark DONALD TRUMP) will be refused protection, but more subtle indicators can survive to registration, such as DONTRUMP (Reg. 327991), BETATRUMP (Reg. No. 329952), TRUMP GOLD (Reg. No. 313441), TRUMP WATER  (Reg. No. 355166 – see image below), and even TRUMP by itself (Reg. No. 342771).

Under Article 73.3 of the IP Law, “signs identical or confusingly similar to real names, aliases, pseudonyms or images of leaders, national heroes or famous personalities of Vietnam or foreign countries” are ineligible for protection as marks, regardless of the goods/services applied for. This is why the “DONALD TRUMP” mark was refused, but it seems to apply only to obvious cases, such as where the full name of the famous person is exploited. If only a part of the name is used, it could still be accepted. From that view, it is likely that the TRUMP-BIDEN mark could be considered inherently distinctive, as it includes neither the full names nor the images of the presidents.

Another interesting TRUMP-derived mark is found in a pending application for TRUMPKIDS KINDERGARTEN:

While the Trump inspiration in the faceless image is undeniable, could this mark still be considered registrable? It consists of the name and image of a famous person, but both are stylized and combined with other elements. In our opinion, the mark is likely to get through. If so, this is an example of a clever way to utilize the fame of a person, while skirting the prohibitions of Article 73.3.

On the other hand, names or signs similar to those of well-known people with decidedly negative reputations – war criminals or terrorists, for example – may be refused for being contrary to social ethics and public order as stipulated in Article 8.1 of the IP Law, regardless of how “creative” the marks are. The mark BILLADEN for pesticides in Class 05 was refused for being confusingly similar to the name of Osama Bin Laden. Although the applicant argued that BILLADEN was fanciful and in no way related to the infamous terrorist, the IP Office held that the registration of the mark was against morality and public policy, and maintained its refusal.

Vulgar or Sensational Slogans

Some companies, especially in youth-oriented sectors like video games or beverages, adopt ridiculous, ear/eye-catching marks in the hope of gaining more attention for their products or services. One of Vietnam’s most popular craft breweries has applied for a series of winkingly raunchy bilingual marks for beer in Class 32, including BOM VU DU XAI [roughly “breast augmentation big enough to use”] FIFTY-TWO TRIPLE Z; COI DO RA [take off your clothes] LET’S GET NAKED; and AN BANH TRA TIEN [slang for “buy/use prostitute”] NO COOKIE NO NOOKIE. While such names are commonplace in the freewheeling craft beer industry, it remains to be seen if they are registrable in Vietnam.

Although the marks are pending without any issued opinion from the IP Office, a similar case was refused for protection. The stylized mark “NUDE” for trading services of food, clothing, household appliances, etc., in Class 35 was refused for again being contrary to social ethics and public order.

The standards for judging this are quite subjective and dependent on the particular examiner’s viewpoint. For example, we found the mark FASCIST was successfully registered for insecticides in Class 05, while DAP DA (literally “beat the rock” but slang for “use drugs”) was registered for restaurant services in Class 43. Based on this precedent, it is highly likely that the pending LET’S GET NAKED mark will be refused but the others will survive to registration, due to their indirect wording.

Our Perspective

We respect our clients’ choices, but we maintain certain standards. While some phrases, symbols, and other sensitive components may evoke powerful emotions that increase sales of the goods they designate, limits must also be set. Bearing in mind that Vietnam is an Asian country with high standards regarding social ethics, foreign companies should be mindful in choosing trademarks to be used in the country. The purpose is not only to have their marks registered, but also to have them accepted by mass Vietnamese consumers.

In addition, media-hype trademarks often have short shelf-lives, while the registration procedure in Vietnam is lengthy, normally 20-24 months. If and when the trademark registrations are granted, it may already be too late to draw the public’s attention. In the end, investing in thoughtful, sustainable trademarks will always be the right choice.

This article first appeared in Managing Intellectual Property.

Related Professionals

Practices

Intellectual Property

Location

RELATED INSIGHTS​ 

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
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