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​ 

January 13, 2023
On January 12, 2023, Myanmar’s Intellectual Property Department (IPD) announced that the country’s Trademark Law enacted in 2019 is set be enforced in March 2023. While an official notification specifying the effective date of the Trademark Law has not yet been issued, this significant announcement by the IPD indicates the impending implementation of the new trademark framework and alerts mark owners to make the necessary preparations to secure trademark protection in Myanmar under the new legal regime. The announcement confirms that trademark registrations, and the procedures for accepting payments, will commence once the Trademark Law enters into force (assuming there is no significant change from the IPD). Based on the Ministry of Commerce’s order (No. 63/2020) initiating the “soft opening” period, as well as this announcement from the IPD, it is expected that the fees for trademark registration will be issued soon, by a separate notification, before enforcement of the Trademark Law. Subsequently, applicants will be allowed to refile existing marks (recorded under Myanmar’s old system or used in the country), together with payment, up until officials announce the end of the IPD’s soft opening period (i.e., the “grand opening” of the IPD). During this time, existing marks can be refiled with the IPD either in person by the mark owner or online by an IPD-certified local representative. After the announcement of the fees and payment process for trademark registration, all mark owners who had previously filed their existing marks during the soft opening period must also pay the necessary fees for their applications. While subsequent announcements will provide details on exactly how to proceed, owners of marks that qualify to be filed during the IPD’s soft opening period should strongly consider refiling the marks with the IPD as soon as possible—if they have not done so already—to reserve
January 12, 2023
Experts from Tilleke & Gibbins’ intellectual property team have written the Vietnam chapter of Practical Law’s Intellectual Property Transactions Global Guide 2022, a high-level comparative overview of intellectual property laws and regulations across more than 30 jurisdictions. The Intellectual Property Transactions Global Guide focuses on business-related aspects of intellectual property, such as the value of intellectual assets in M&A transactions, and the licensing of IP portfolios. The topics covered include the following: IP assignment IP licensing Research and development collaborations IP audits IP aspects of M&A Lending and security interests Settlement agreements Employee and consultant agreements Key issues in IP transactions To read the Vietnam chapter, please visit the Practical Law website or click on the link below.
January 4, 2023
In early November 2022, a Thai appeals court overruled the Trademark Registrar’s decision and the Board of Trademarks’ ruling by upholding the registrability of an oil company’s trademark application for its branded service station layout. This is the latest word in a long-running dispute between ExxonMobil and the country’s Department of Intellectual Property (DIP), which had previously rejected the mark as indistinctive. ExxonMobil first filed applications in April 2015 for a trademark bearing a unique colorful drawing of the layout of a service station bearing its well-known registered “ESSO” mark in International Classes 4 and 35 in Thailand. However, the Thai Trademark Registrar refused to register the mark, arguing that the mark was devoid of inherent distinctiveness because the service station layout drawing is directly descriptive of the applied-for goods and services related to oil products. According to the Registrar, the public would not be able to distinguish between the goods and services bearing ExxonMobil’s mark and those bearing the marks of others. ExxonMobil appealed this refusal to the Board of Trademarks, which ultimately agreed that ExxonMobil’s marks are devoid of inherent distinctiveness. The Board explained that the dominant elements in the drawing consist of a common service station with fuel dispensers, which is directly related to the applied-for goods and services related to oil products. The Board also deemed that the submitted evidence was insufficient to prove that the mark had gained distinctiveness through use. ExxonMobil disagreed with these rulings and thus filed a civil complaint with the Intellectual Property and International Trade Court (IP&IT Court) to revoke the Registrar’s decisions and the Board’s rulings. The IP&IT Court examined the case and issued its judgment in favor of ExxonMobil, ruling that the marks are inherently distinctive. The Court noted that to consider a mark’s distinctiveness, it is crucial
January 4, 2023
In decisions dated 29 September 2022, the Lao Department of Intellectual Property (DIP) has cancelled two trademark registrations based on their confusing similarity to earlier marks. An official from the DIP unofficially confirmed that these decisions are the first of their kind in Laos and, as such, constitute a positive step that puts legal provisions into actual practice. Background In Laos, cancellation proceedings against a registered mark are not common, as the number of applications in the country is relatively low and thorough substantive examination only began to be carried out in recent years. There was previously no precedent for how cancellation decisions would be handled, despite the Law on Intellectual Property (No. 38/NA of 15 November 2017) allowing a third party to file a petition for the cancellation of a registered mark if it can be proven that the mark should not be granted registration. The Law on Intellectual Property states that a third party may object to, or request the cancellation of, a trademark registration within five years of its date of publication in the Official Gazette. However, it is difficult to ascertain how to calculate the five-year period if the mark was registered before June 2019, as publication in the Official Gazette was first made available at that time. This could mean that the five-year statutory limitation for trademark cancellation in Laos could start from June 2024, but how this will be applied in practice remains to be seen. The Case This case began when Siam Kubota Corporation Co Ltd took action against two marks that looked similar to its own earlier marks (see Figure 1): Figure 1. Earlier registered marks Siam Kubota registered its marks in 2009 for goods in Class 12, and has extensively used and protected the marks in Laos. After reviewing its