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

August 22, 2013

Well-Known Trademarks in Vietnam: Theory and Practice

Informed Counsel

The protection of well-known trademarks was first established by Article 6bis of the Paris Convention. However, the Paris Convention and other subsequent international treaties do not clearly define the concept of being “well known.” As a result, the definition of “well known” varies to some extent among signatory states.

In Vietnam, Article 4.20 of the Law on Intellectual Property (IP Law) defines well-known trademarks as marks that are “widely known by consumers throughout the territory of Vietnam.” The criteria to establish the well-known status are provided in Article 75 of the IP Law, and include, inter alia, the level of awareness of the mark among the public, the promotion of the mark in Vietnam, the duration and geographical extent of the use of the mark, and the number of countries granting protection to the mark. It is worth noting that Article 4.20 has a higher standard of being “well known” than Article 75.

The rights to a well-known mark are derived from use, not registration. This use, however, does not need to occur in Vietnam. For example, the National Office of Intellectual Property (NOIP) has recognized the well-known status of the mark McDONALD’S even though the mark was neither registered nor used in Vietnam at the time of the recognition (in fact, McDonald’s has yet to open its first restaurant in Vietnam).

Effect of Well-Known Trademarks

Well-known marks are granted extended protection: it is considered an infringement to exploit a well-known trademark not only for goods or services identical or confusingly similar to those covered by the well-known trademark, but for all goods or services. Moreover, a well-known mark can be cited to refuse or cancel trademarks even if the goods or services for which the trademark is registered are not identical or similar to the goods or services covered by the well-known mark. 

Recognition of Well-Known Status in Practice

In practice, the recognition of the well-known status of a mark often arises during the examination of the trademark application or the enforcement of trademark rights. There is no formal procedure in Vietnam for recognizing the fame of a mark. The NOIP can ex officio recognize the well-known status of a mark during examination, opposition, or cancellation proceedings, and may refuse to register marks that are in conflict with a well-known mark. For example, the NOIP declined to register the mark EUROGO based on the well-known status of the mark URGO and found that Nike’s Swoosh device constituted an obstacle to the registration of another curved device mark in Vietnam. In both cases, the NOIP recognized the well-known status of URGO and the Nike device ex officio.

In the process of enforcement, a trademark owner can also request the enforcement bodies to acknowledge the reputation of a mark, which can be a prerequisite to the resolution of IP disputes in certain cases. But enforcement bodies, such as courts and administrative enforcement agencies, rarely decide on the well-known status of a mark ex officio. Usually, the enforcement agencies seek the opinion of other agencies, such as the NOIP.

In Interbrand Group v. Interbrand JSC, the British Interbrand Group brought a trademark infringement charge against the Vietnamese Interbrand JSC, claiming that the Vietnamese company infringed Interbrand Group’s exclusive right to exploit the trademark INTERBRAND. Interbrand Group, however, had not registered its trademark in Vietnam, and the Vietnamese company provided services substantially different from those provided by Interbrand Group.

Interbrand Group therefore needed to have its mark recognized as a well-known mark to properly resolve the case. In establishing the grounds for trademark infringement, Interbrand Group requested the court to recognize the well-known status of its mark in Vietnam prior to the incorporation date of the defendant. The court did not rule on the issue on its own but sought the NOIP’s opinion. Based on the NOIP’s recognition of the fame of the mark, the court ruled in favor of Interbrand Group.

Major Issues to  Address

In view of the regulations on well-known marks, as well as the practice of competent authorities, two major issues relevant to well-known marks still need to be properly addressed.

The first issue is the inconsistent definition of “well-known” status in the IP Law. According to Article 75, the well-known status of a mark depends primarily on its well-known status among the relevant sector of the public. Under Article 4.20, however, a mark must be widely known to all consumers throughout the territory of Vietnam in order to be considered “well known.” Consequently, to some extent, Vietnamese law requires a mark to be famous, and not just well known, in order to become entitled to special statutory treatment as a well-known mark. 

This inconsistency in the legal definition results in some arbitrary recognitions of well-known marks by the competent authorities. Moreover, the inconsistency poses difficulties to owners of well-known marks used to distinguish goods or services in more specific sectors (such as specialized medical equipment), where the trademarks are not likely to ever become well known to the average Vietnamese consumer.

The second issue to be addressed is the lack of determination in recognizing a mark as well known. In most enforcement cases, the enforcement bodies, despite their power, do not decide on the fame of a mark on their own. They often rely on the NOIP’s assessment on the recognition and are unlikely to rule against the NOIP’s opinion. In some cases, this may prevent brand owners from enforcing their legitimate rights.

It is hoped that, when the IP Law is amended next year, these issues will be addressed. The amended IP Law should clarify the concept of well-known marks to create favorable conditions for owners of a well-known brand within a relevant sector to enforce their rights. Based on the detailed regulations, brand owners can work out the appropriate strategy to establish the well-known status of their marks in order to get the upper hand on their competitors.

RELATED INSIGHTS​ 

March 22, 2024
Indonesia’s Ministry of Industry (MOI) has issued a new regulation requiring importers of textiles, textile products, bags, and footwear to furnish applicable trademark certificates when applying for an import permit. This means that a letter of appointment to import from the trademark owner or authorized representative is no longer sufficient to obtain an import permit for these goods. The requirement is detailed in MOI Regulation No. 5 of 2024 concerning Procedures for Issuing Technical Considerations for Imports of Textiles, Textile Products, Bags and Footwear, which took effect on March 10, 2024. Affected Products The new regulation applies to the following products: Textiles: Fiber, thread, fabric Textile products: Carpets, other textile floor coverings, clothing, ready-made clothing accessories, other finished textile goods Bags: Suitcases, wallets, school bags, sports bags, handbags, other bags Footwear: Shoes, sandals, moccasins Import Permits In principle, businesses can import textiles, textile products, bags, and footwear as raw materials, auxiliary materials, or consumer goods (for trading) after obtaining the appropriate import permit from the Ministry of Trade (MOT). There are three categories of import permits: General import permits for consumption (API-U), which are required for parties that conduct import activities for the purpose of trading; Import permits for producers (API-P); and Import permits for suppliers of raw or auxiliary materials (PPBB). Applicants for an import permit must submit an application for general importer verification (VIU), the results of which will inform the MOI’s technical consideration process. If the MOI issues a recommendation or approval based on their technical consideration, applicants will be able to proceed with the submission of their import permit to the MOT. The process of applying for and obtaining an API-U import permit has several steps, as shown in the diagram below. New Trademark Certificate Requirement Under the MOI’s March 2024 regulation, when applying for
February 23, 2024
The newly released Licensing 2024 guide, published by Lexology Panoramic, features a chapter on Vietnam by four licensing specialists from Tilleke & Gibbins. The comparative guide provides companies and other interested readers with information on licensing law and practice in various countries around the world. Licensing 2024 provides detailed information on the following topics: Restrictions, laws and licensing arrangements Intellectual property issues: Paris Convention for the Protection of Industrial Property, contesting the validity of licensor’s IP rights, invalidity and expiry of IP rights, security interests, proceedings against third parties, sublicensing, jointly owned IP, first to file, scope of patent protection, trade secrets, copyright Software licensing: Perpetual licensing, legal requirements, user restrictions Royalties and payments, currency conversion, and taxes: Relevant legislation, restrictions, taxation of foreign licensors Competition law issues: Restrictions on trade, legal restrictions, and IP-related court rulings Indemnification, disclaimers, and damages: Prevalence and enforceability of indemnity provisions and contractual waivers of damages Termination: Right to terminate, impact of termination Bankruptcy: Impact of licensee or licensor bankruptcy Dispute resolution: Governing law, arbitration, enforceability, injunctive relief, contractual waivers The Vietnam chapter was authored by Linh Thi Mai Nguyen, partner and head of Tilleke & Gibbins’ trademark team in Vietnam; Son Thai Hoang, trademark executive; and Chi Lan Dang, associate, of Tilleke & Gibbins’ trademark team, along with corporate and commercial senior associate Tu Ngoc Trinh, who has extensive experience in franchising and competition law. The Vietnam chapter is available below as a PDF. Tilleke & Gibbins also contributed the Thailand chapter to Licensing 2024. Readers can gain 30 days of complementary access to the full Licensing 2024 guide and the rest of Lexology Panoramic’s varied offerings through this link.
February 23, 2024
Two of Tilleke & Gibbins’ licensing specialists in Bangkok have contributed the Thailand chapter to the newly issued Licensing 2024, a comprehensive guide from Lexology Panoramic to licensing in various jurisdictions around the world. The Thailand chapter covers the following topics: Laws and licensing arrangements: Unfair Contract Terms Act, Trade Competition Act, pre-contractual disclosure, registration of international licensing, implied obligations, Civil and Commercial Code, Trademark Act, Patent Act, Trade Secrets Act Intellectual property issues: Paris Convention for the Protection of Industrial Property, contesting the validity of licensor’s IP rights, invalidity and expiry of IP rights, security interests, proceedings against third parties, sublicensing, jointly owned IP, first to file, scope of patent protection, trade secrets, copyright Software licensing: Perpetual licensing, legal requirements, user restrictions Royalties and payments, currency conversion, and taxes: Relevant legislation, restrictions, taxation of foreign licensors Competition law issues: Restrictions on trade, legal restrictions, and IP-related court rulings Indemnification, disclaimers, and damages: Prevalence and enforceability of indemnity provisions and contractual waivers of damages Termination: Right to terminate, impact of termination Bankruptcy: Impact of licensee or licensor bankruptcy Dispute resolution: Governing law, arbitration, enforceability, injunctive relief, contractual waivers The Thailand chapter was authored by Alan Adcock, partner, and Kasama Sriwatanakul, counsel, both in the Thailand regulatory affairs team. The full Thailand chapter is available below as a PDF. Tilleke & Gibbins also contributed the Vietnam chapter to Licensing 2024. Readers can gain 30 days of complementary access to the full Licensing 2024 guide and the rest of Lexology Panoramic’s varied offerings through this link.
February 22, 2024
Myanmar’s Intellectual Property Department (IPD) has released its announcement dated February 9, 2024, stating that it is now accepting applications for registration of copyrights and related rights under the Copyright Law of 2019. The Copyright Law of 2019 entered into force on October 31, 2023, replacing the old Copyright Act of 1914. The Ministry of Commerce (MOC) issued the Copyright Rules in Notification No. 70/2023 on October 23, 2023, setting the required procedures for copyright-related matters in Myanmar. Forms required for registration and related actions regarding copyrights and related rights were issued by the MOC under Notification No. 73/2023 on November 20, 2023. Regarding the official fees, the IP Agency issued Notification No. 1/2024 on February 13, 2024. While copyright protection arises automatically without the need for registration, rights holders can voluntarily apply for registration of their works under the new framework of the Copyright Law of 2019 if they wish to secure stronger evidence of ownership for their works in Myanmar. Applications can be filed by the applicant electronically, in person or through a local representative, or by post. Applicants incorporated or residing outside Myanmar must appoint a local representative to file the application with the IPD. For more information on the voluntary registration of copyrights and related rights in Myanmar, or for assistance in applying to register copyrights, please contact Tilleke & Gibbins at [email protected].