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​ 

January 30, 2026
Vietnam’s Intellectual Property (IP) Law, despite being amended in 2022, underwent another significant revision at the end of 2025. The latest amendment aimed to address five major policy objectives set by the Vietnamese government, including promoting innovation, digital transformation, and international integration. Among the most notable changes in the 2025 IP Law, which takes effect on 1 April 2026, is the expansion of industrial design protection under Article 4.13. The revised definition now includes partial designs and intangible designs, marking a transformative shift in Vietnam’s industrial design regime. This change has particularly significant implications on designs classified under Class 32 of the Locarno Classification—which covers graphic designs, logos, ornamentation, surface patterns, arrangements, and other intangible products. These designs, previously excluded from protection in Vietnam, are now recognized under the new legal framework. Background: Status of Class 32 Designs Before 2026 Th Intellectual Property Office of Vietnam currently applies the 13th edition of the Locarno Classification for industrial design filings. However, not all classes in this system have historically been eligible for protection. Under the 2022 IP Law, Class 32 designs were explicitly excluded based on the following legal grounds: Definition under Article 4.13 (2022 IP Law): “An industrial design is the external appearance of a product or a component for assembly into a complex product, expressed in shapes, lines, colors, or a combination thereof, and visible during the exploitation of the product’s utility or the complex product.” Product requirements under Article 21.2 of Circular 23/2023/TT-BKHCN: A product is defined as an object, a tool, a device, or means, manufactured by industrial or handicraft methods, with clear structure and function. A component for assembly into a complex product must be capable of independent circulation and detachable from the complex product. Based on these definitions, Class 32 designs, such as graphical
Read More
December 30, 2025
The Intellectual Property Office of Vietnam (IP Office), with support from the Japan International Cooperation Agency (JICA), is drafting additional annexes to its Guidelines for Patent Examination, focusing on the examination of patent applications in the pharmaceutical and biotechnology sectors. The new annexes are expected to be officially issued in early 2026 as Annexes III and IV, following the successful issuance in 2023 of Annexes I and II addressing computer program-related inventions. The IP Office recently organized a seminar to gather feedback on the draft annexes from intellectual property representatives, academic institutions, research institutes, and other interested parties, emphasizing its intention to receive further constructive opinions to refine the guidelines for pharmaceuticals and biotechnology. Why These Guidelines Matter Patent examination in Vietnam has traditionally relied on the Guidelines for Patent Examination issued under Decision No. 487/QD-SHTT (2010), recently supplemented by Annexes I and II. While these documents provide a solid foundation, they do not fully address practical challenges in examining pharmaceutical and biotech inventions, particularly issues related to clarity, sufficiency of disclosure, enablement, features of function and utility, combination therapies, and inventions involving artificial intelligence (AI) applications in these fields. Annexes III and IV aim to close these gaps by introducing structured principles and illustrative examples. Guidance on Patent Specification Requirements Annex III provides detailed guidance on the requirements for patent specifications in pharmaceuticals and biotechnology, covering two main parts: Part A addresses sufficiency of disclosure, clarity of specifications, and consistency between claims and descriptions. Part B covers inventions related to Markush-type compounds, claims containing exclusion statements (disclaimers), and additional experimental data submitted during examination. The Guidelines outline specific disclosure requirements for subject matters such as compounds, formulations, pharmaceutical compositions, genes, polypeptides, proteins, vectors, transgenic organisms, modified organisms, and hybrid cells. Annex III emphasizes that disclaimers are not accepted
Read More
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