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​ 

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