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​ 

October 21, 2024
Thailand’s Central Intellectual Property and International Trade (IP&IT) Court has delivered a favorable ruling for Sumitomo Rubber Industries, Ltd., a major player in the tire manufacturing industry, regarding the registration of its motorcycle tire design patent. In this case, Tilleke & Gibbins represented Sumitomo in successfully advocating for recognition of the unique design elements in the company’s motorcycle tire products. Case Overview The case revolved around Sumitomo’s two design patent applications for motorcycle tire designs, which were initially rejected by the Department of Intellectual Property (DIP) on the grounds that they were similar to prior art. Based on an examination of the design elements, primarily focusing on the tire tread patterns, the DIP’s Patent Board had concluded that Sumitomo’s designs were not sufficiently unique to warrant patent protection, as the tread patterns of the new designs were deemed too similar to one found in prior art for tire products. In response, Tilleke & Gibbins filed a complaint with the IP&IT Court on behalf of Sumitomo, seeking a revocation of the Patent Board’s decision and requesting that the court compel the DIP, as the defendant, to proceed with the registration of Sumitomo’s design patents. The complaint emphasized that the designs were novel and distinct, warranting patent protection under Thai law. Legal Strategy The firm’s legal argument focused on the interpretation of Thai patent law, particularly regarding the protection of a product’s external appearance, and emphasized that the determination of a design’s novelty must consider the product’s overall appearance rather than isolating individual features. This approach is consistent with international guidelines on design patents, which require the evaluation of novelty and distinctiveness based on how an informed user would perceive the design as a whole. While Sumitomo’s tire tread patterns may share some superficial similarities to existing designs, the overall impression
Read More
October 20, 2024
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
Read More
October 7, 2024
Starting October 15, 2024, Cambodia will implement a new penalty for late patent annuity payments and restorations, according to an unofficial announcement from the country’s Department of Industrial Property under the Ministry of Industry, Science, Technology, and Innovation. This new penalty will apply to patents, utility model certificates, and plant variety protection registrations. To avoid additional charges and prevent the abandonment of any pending applications or the lapse of registrations, applicants and registration owners must pay each annuity within the six months before the annuity period starts, or by its due date. If the annuity is not paid by the due date, a grace period of six months is allowed for late payment, with a daily charge of KHR 500 (approximately USD 0.125) per day. If payment is not made within this grace period, the patent will be deemed withdrawn or will lapse. However, the Patent Office can initiate the restoration process within the last six months of the annuity period. This requires a USD 25 restoration fee plus an additional daily charge of USD 0.125 from the start of the grace period until payment is completed. To avoid additional charges and prevent the potential abandonment of applications or registrations, companies and their appointees need to keep track of all annuity due dates for patents, utility model certificates, and plant variety protection registrations and pay all annuities well in advance of the due date. For more details on this penalty, or on any aspect of intellectual property protection in Cambodia, please contact Tilleke & Gibbins at [email protected].
Read More
October 3, 2024
Lawyers from Tilleke & Gibbins’ intellectual property team, under the guidance of Darani Vachanavuttivong, managing partner and managing director of the firm’s intellectual property department, have contributed an update to Thomson Reuters Practical Law’s Intellectual Property Rights in Thailand: Overview guide for 2024. This guide provides a comprehensive overview of intellectual property (IP) laws in Thailand, covering key areas such as patents, trademarks, copyright, trade secrets, and registered designs. It also addresses the enforcement of these rights, as well as the procedures for registering patents, trademarks, and other IP protections. The Thailand chapter outlines important aspects of IP law, including: The conditions and procedures for obtaining patents and registered designs, including the different types of patent protection available. Legal requirements for registering trademarks, including what constitutes a distinctive and legally protectable mark. The scope of copyright protection and the rights granted to creators of original works, including economic and moral rights. Protection of trade secrets and confidential information under the Trade Secrets Act, which safeguards valuable business information. This guide is a valuable resource for legal practitioners and businesses seeking to understand the nuances of Thailand’s IP landscape. To explore the latest version of Intellectual Property Rights in Thailand: Overview, please visit the Practical Law website and enroll in the free Practical Law trial to gain full access.
Read More