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

May 25, 2021

Vietnam: The “Straw Man” in Vietnam Trademark Practice

Subscribe to Updates
Managing Intellectual Property

When a thriving U.S. cosmetics startup discovered that a trademark application for its brand name had been filed in Vietnam by a small local company – likely a trademark squatter – it considered reclaiming its rights by purchasing the mark. However, recognizing that the Vietnamese company might ask for an excessively high amount for the assignment, they opted to use a “straw man” – another Vietnamese company with no visible connection to the startup – to directly negotiate with the squatter and acquire the mark to transfer to the startup. The transaction was completed, and the U.S. company successfully acquired their IP rights in Vietnam at quite a reasonable price.

While the concept of the straw man may seem strange, it is being commonly used and has become familiar to trademark practitioners. Simply put, a straw man is a party acting on behalf of another party to conceal the true owner or actor. A trademark application, opposition, or cancellation may be filed by a straw man to conceal the identity of the party with actual interest in such procedure, especially in a business context, where many filings and registrations are publicly accessible with just a click of a mouse.

There are a number of reasons for seeking confidentiality, such as:

  • To file an opposition anonymously to avoid a potential conflict with a competitor;
  • To prevent a competitor from recognizing the business areas you are interested in;
  • To file more than one opposition to a particular mark in order to present different arguments without conflict;
  • To reduce the license/assignment price during negotiations.

However, the use of a straw man has its own risks that need to be considered, and may not always be a wise tactic in Vietnam.

Applications

Article 87.1 of Vietnam’s IP Law states that “Organizations and individuals have the right to register marks used for goods they produce or for services they provide”. Obviously, the straw man does not produce goods or provide services. However, this provision is “open,” and does not preclude others from registering a mark. In addition, intent to use is not explicitly required for registering a mark in Vietnam. Therefore, a straw man may certainly file and register a trademark without being accused of bad faith.

However, there are downsides to filing through a straw man. For example, if an office action is raised against the mark for lacking distinctiveness and the wide-use status of the mark must be provided to overcome the refusal, the straw man will not be able to provide such evidence of use under its name.

In another scenario, if a letter of consent must be obtained to overcome a refusal, the owner of the cited mark may hesitate to cooperate with a no-name straw man. A prestigious applicant would be in a much better position to ask for this letter of consent.

Assignments

In most cases, after a mark is registered, the straw man should assign the mark to the true owner. However, the assignment may not be possible if the mark is identical or confusingly similar to the name of the straw man (if the straw man is a company) or to any other marks of the straw man. In such cases, the assignment request will be refused by the IP Office for causing confusion.

Also, the IP Office recently stated that an assignment request would be refused if “the assignee is not an organization or individual having the function of producing or trading in goods/services bearing the assigned trademark.” It is not clear whether the IP Office will proactively check the business lines of the assignee, or require the assignee to prove its business lines before recordal of assignment. However, it is likely that a law firm or IP agent, whose consulting function is obvious, could not serve as the straw man for later assignment of the mark to its client. If the IP Office refuses to record the assignment of the mark to the straw man, a re-assignment from the straw man to the true owner would be impossible.

Oppositions/Cancellations

Everyone has the right to file an opposition or cancellation, including a straw man who has no related interests or legal standing. Accordingly, a request may be brought by any straw man, including a lawyer or IP agent. However, the identity of the party who is actually behind the cancellation request may still be revealed, as a similarity search can show which pending mark is confusingly similar to the mark being challenged (and is thus being refused by the IP Office), as well as the name of its applicant.

The straw man is not prohibited in trademark practice Vietnam, and companies may consider using one when needed. In some cases, the straw man may be effective in keeping much-needed confidentiality while still being able to obtain the trademark rights for its true owner. However, as the tactic may also come with some risks, careful consideration must be taken before deciding to use it.

This article first appeared in Managing Intellectual Property.

Download Full Article
Related Professionals

Practices

Intellectual Property

Location

RELATED INSIGHTS​ 

October 3, 2025
In Thailand, the rise in online intellectual property infringement has prompted authorities to strengthen enforcement efforts, including the use of website-blocking orders under Section 20(3) of the Computer Crime Act B.E. 2560 (2017) (CCA). This provision authorizes the Ministry of Digital Economy and Society (MDES), with court approval, to block or remove computer data that constitutes a criminal offence under IP law. Since its implementation, the procedure has undergone several developments, which is an encouraging sign of progress. Website-blocking procedure In practice, website-blocking orders under Section 20(3) of the CCA are primarily used for copyright and trademark infringement. While such orders are legally applicable to patent infringement, their use remains challenging due to the difficulty of proving infringement through administrative procedures. The website-blocking procedure begins when an IP owner identifies online infringing content. For copyright infringement, which is considered a compoundable offence, the IP owner is required to first file a police report with the specialized police unit known as the Economic Crime Suppression Division (ECD) prior to filing the website-blocking application with the Department of Intellectual Property (DIP). For trademark infringement cases, the application can be filed directly with the DIP without a prior police report. The DIP reviews the evidence and, if infringement is confirmed, forwards it to the MDES for further consideration. If the case is deemed valid, the MDES requests a court order to block the infringing website. Once granted, the MDES notifies the internet service providers (ISPs) to block access to the specified website. Website blocking procedure in Thailand Recent advancements in website-blocking actions Seamless collaboration through digital integration. Thailand has made significant progress in digitizing its website-blocking procedures to improve efficiency and transparency. At present, all website-blocking applications and supporting evidence must be submitted in electronic format. These systems have significantly reduced processing
Read More
September 24, 2025
Online shopping in Thailand is more accessible than ever, with global platforms, local social media shops, and entertainment-driven social commerce enabling instant purchases. However, this convenience comes with rising concerns over digital intellectual property (IP) infringement, including counterfeit goods, pirated content, and unauthorized brand usage. At first glance, online platforms appear to offer quick solutions. Most major e-commerce sites, social media channels, and social commerce platforms provide “notice and takedown” systems, where IP owners can file complaints and request the removal of listings that infringe IP rights, such as trademarks and copyrights. These tools are certainly useful, as seeing a fake product vanish from a platform feels like progress. But the reality is less reassuring. The counterfeit goods themselves remain in warehouses, markets, or shops, ready to be resold. Sellers whose accounts are taken down often return within days under new names or accounts. In other words, a takedown is like cutting weeds without pulling out the roots: they always grow back. While notice and takedown tools are widely available and can be managed internally by most IP owners, their impact is often short-lived. IP owners seeking more effective, lasting protection need to take a more strategic and multilayered approach. The same applies to online piracy. Unauthorized streaming websites that offer free access to movies, TV shows, or sports broadcasts have become widespread in Thailand. To combat this, rightsholders can request website blocking under the Computer Crime Act, through the Ministry of Digital Economy and Society and the courts. Once requests are approved, internet service providers are ordered to block access to infringing sites. Blocking orders can be effective in disrupting large-scale piracy operations, but they also face limitations—pirate sites frequently reappear under new domains. Strategic Protection Whether the infringing material is physical counterfeit goods or intangible streaming content,
Read More
September 4, 2025
On June 6, 2025, the Superior People’s Court in Hanoi overturned a non-use cancellation decision by the Intellectual Property Office of Vietnam, a rare and impactful occurrence. In a ruling that may help clarify the enforcement of Vietnam’s IP Law, the court held that valid trademark use can be established through commercial arrangements where the brand owner maintains actual control over the use of the mark, and is not confined to relationships governed by a so-called “formal license agreement. Background: Cross-Border Use, Local Challenge A Singapore company owns a well-known brand of consumer products that has gained recognition across Southeast Asia. In recent years, the brand has been targeted by several unauthorized trademark filings in Vietnam. In one such instance, a local Vietnamese trading company—previously linked to the production and export of counterfeit goods to neighboring countries—filed a non-use cancellation against the Singapore company’s mark and sought to register it under its own name. If the cancellation had been upheld, it would have enabled a complete hijacking of the brand. The IP holder operates in Vietnam through a structured cross-border supply chain. Under an agreement between two related foreign entities, one of which managed regional operations, production orders were placed through a designated Vietnamese company. While the Vietnamese manufacturer was not a party to the agreement, its role in using the mark was recognized and governed by internal and commercial documentation. The Vietnamese manufacturer lawfully obtained the necessary permits, regulatory approvals, and customs clearances for producing the goods in Vietnam. These activities were supported by banking records and internal communications, evidencing active, continuous use of the mark in Vietnam. However, the IP Office concluded that this use did not meet the statutory criteria because the Vietnamese manufacturer did not have a direct license agreement with the brand owner, as
Read More
August 25, 2025
Indonesia’s current regulations on franchises, as stipulated under Government Regulation No. 35/2024 on Franchising and its implementing regulation, Ministry of Trade (MOT) Regulation No. 71/2019 regarding Implementation of Franchising, highlight fundamental changes in franchise registration. These changes have introduced additional complexities and challenges in the franchise registration procedure, making it more difficult for franchise owners to navigate the process. New procedure Franchise applications are still submitted through the Online Single Submission (OSS) portal of the Capital Investment Coordinating Board (BKPM). However, the new procedure requires each applicant, including foreign franchisors, to have an OSS account and a business registration number (NIB) issued by BKPM. An application for franchise registration must be submitted under the applicant’s own account—submissions can no longer be made through the account of a consultant. Once a franchise application is submitted, the authority will distribute the submission to the MOT—the authorized ministry for franchise registration. Any notification or decision upon the registration made by the MOT will be available in the OSS system. Applicants should regularly monitor the status of the franchise application because no notifications will be sent to applicants to alert them of any deficiency. Here is the summary of the new procedure for franchisors: Notable Requirements The disclosure document, or prospectus, is the key focus for the MOT in examining a franchise registration for a franchisor. This document is subject to thorough scrutiny by the MOT to ensure that all mandatory information meets the requirements set in the franchise regulations. The current regulations specifically require that the mandatory clause “business system” in the prospectus cover operational standards and procedures, which should include human resource management, administration, operational management, standard operating methods, business location selection, business premises design, employee requirements, and marketing strategies. Other clauses that are equally important to pay attention to are:
Read More