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​ 

July 30, 2025
Artificial intelligence (AI) model training and data scraping are essential processes in the development of modern AI systems. AI model training involves using large datasets to teach machine learning algorithms to recognize patterns, make predictions, or generate new content. Data scraping refers to the automated extraction of information from websites or digital sources, often to assemble the vast datasets required for effective AI training. As these practices become more widespread, questions about the legality of using third-party content—especially copyrighted works—have become increasingly important. In Thailand, the legal landscape for AI developers is shaped primarily by the Copyright Act, which presents unique challenges due to the absence of a fair-use exception. This article examines the copyright-related risks and legal uncertainties facing AI developers under Thailand’s current copyright law and practices, offering strategic guidance for navigating this complex environment. Copyright Risks in AI Scraping and Training Thailand’s Copyright Act does not provide a broad fair use or fair dealing exception, unlike some other jurisdictions, such as the United States. This absence has significant consequences for AI developers: No general defense for AI training: Any use of copyrighted material for AI model training is presumed to be infringing unless a specific, narrow statutory exception applies or explicit permission is obtained from the rights holder. There is no general legal basis for using copyrighted works in AI training without authorization. Increased rights clearance burden: Developers must identify and secure licenses for every copyrighted work included in their training datasets. Given the scale and diversity of data required for effective AI models, this process can be both impractical and costly. Legal ambiguity and litigation risk: The lack of clear statutory guidance or case law leaves developers in a legal gray area. There is no established precedent clarifying whether certain uses of copyrighted material for
July 25, 2025
Over the first half of 2025, the government of Vietnam has implemented a comprehensive suite of legislative reforms that significantly impact the country’s intellectual property (IP) framework. These amendments, most of which took effect on 1 July 2025, span the criminal, civil, administrative, and judicial sectors, and are part of a broader initiative to modernize Vietnam’s legal infrastructure, strengthen enforcement mechanisms, and harmonize domestic regulations with international standards. A summary of the key legislative changes and their potential implications for IP protection and enforcement across Vietnam is provided below. Criminal Code: Stricter penalties Under the 2025 amendments to Vietnam’s Criminal Code, penalties for offenses involving the manufacturing and trading of counterfeit goods have been significantly escalated. Individuals convicted of such violations now face fines ranging from VND 200 million to VND 2 billion (approximately USD 7,700 to USD 77,000; up from VND 100 million to VND 1 billion). For corporate entities, the penalties are even more severe, with fines ranging from VND 2 billion to VND 40 billion (roughly USD 77,000 to USD 1.54 million; up from VND 1 billion to VND 20 billion). These heightened penalties reflect the government’s intensified efforts to deter counterfeit-related crimes and protect consumer rights. Law on Handling Administrative Violations: Extended statute of limitations and application of electronic procedure The statute of limitations for addressing administrative violations in the IP sector is still two years. However, in cases where such violations are referred by procedural authorities, this period is extended by one year. The time taken by these authorities to process the case is now included within the overall limitation period. In addition, the Law on Handling Administrative Violations facilitates the use of electronic procedures, provided that the necessary infrastructure, technical systems, and information conditions are in place. Specifically, enforcement authorities are now permitted
July 21, 2025
Distinctiveness is a fundamental requirement for a trademark’s registration and protection under Thai law. The Thai courts typically assess distinctiveness based on a mark’s inherent characteristics rather than its use, as proving acquired distinctiveness through use requires substantial evidence, including the duration of use, extent of distribution and promotional efforts. However, the Intellectual Property and International Trade Court (IP & IT Court) has recently ruled that the figurative mark WEPLAY had acquired distinctiveness through use – an uncommon ruling under Thai trademark law. Subsequently, the Court of Appeal for Specialised Cases affirmed the mark’s inherent distinctiveness based on a holistic assessment of its components. This article discusses the criteria for proving both inherent and acquired distinctiveness, offering examples from both courts to provide valuable insights into case preparation and understanding of how the courts assess distinctiveness. Background In 2017 the plaintiff filed a trademark application for the mark depicted below for goods in Class 28, including toy building blocks: The registrar rejected the application on the grounds of non-distinctiveness under Section 7 of the Trademark Act. The plaintiff appealed to the Board of Trademarks, which considered that, when the term ‘weplay’ is used for goods in Class 28, it is descriptive of the nature of the goods applied for as “playthings”. Therefore, ‘weplay’ was deemed nondistinctive under Section 7, Paragraph 2(2) of the Trademark Act. IP & IT Court decision In 2024 the IP & IT Court ruled that the term ‘weplay’ is not a coined or invented word; instead, it is a combination of ‘we’ and ‘play’, conveying the meaning of ‘we play’. When the term is used for goods in Class 28, it describes the nature of the goods as “playthings”. Consequently, the mark was deemed non-distinctive. However, the court considered the evidence presented by the plaintiff,
July 14, 2025
Life sciences specialists from Tilleke & Gibbins have updated the firm’s guide to pharmaceutical data exclusivity regulations and practices in Southeast Asia. This guide contains quick-reference information on the availability of data exclusivity protections and limitations in Cambodia, Indonesia, Laos, Malaysia, Myanmar, Thailand, and Vietnam. Developing and launching a new drug on a commercial scale requires an enormous amount of time and investment in research and development (R&D), including pre-clinical testing and clinical trials. When considering the aggregate amount of drug development costs, it is important to recognize that this includes not only the investment in developing new drugs that get approved by a government food and drug regulator and are successfully brought to market, but also the R&D expenditures on a large number of potential pharmaceutical compounds and products that never actually make it to market. In particular, considerable investment is required in order to conduct and produce clinical trial data—to prove safety, efficacy and effectiveness of a new drug—that would warrant marketing approval by the regulatory authority. Such data is proprietary in nature and highly valuable for a research-based pharmaceutical company that develops an original drug. On the other hand, patent law typically confers generic drug manufacturers with the ability to engage in various preparatory activities with a view to obtaining marketing approval for a generic product before the patent for the original drug expires (commonly known as a “Bolar provision”). Since a generic drug maker may submit an application for marketing approval of a generic product before the relevant patent expires, the extent to which the drug originator’s data submitted to the regulatory authority is protected—or in other words, the extent to which the generic company may rely on the drug originator’s previously filed data, which underpins the safety and efficacy of the drug, to support