Le Thi Nam Giang [1]

  1. “Overlapping” protection issues and conflict of rights issues in the protection of intellectual property objects

Intellectual property law (IP) protects IPR objects such as copyright, copyright-related rights, inventions and public designs industries and trademarks (including trademarks and service marks), geographical indications, trade names, business secrets, semiconductor integrated circuit layout designs, rights to plant varieties. These are independent objects of IP rights, protected under specific provisions in IP law with the conditions of protection, the term of protection, the rights of authors, owners … to be tightly regulated. for each subject. The basis of arising and establishing IP rights for these objects is also different. However, an innovative result can be protected in different forms of IP rights. For example, a technical solution may be protected as a [2] patent if the novelty requirements are met. , creativity, industrial applicability and not falling into excluded objects are not protected as inventions. But that technical solution can also be protected as a business secret [3] if the conditions are met: ( i) it is not common knowledge and not easy to get; (ii) when used in business, it will give holders of business secrets an advantage over those who do not hold or use such trade secrets; (iii) protected by the owner by the means necessary to prevent that business secret from being disclosed and not easily accessible (iv) does not fall under circumstances that are not protected by law in the name of is a trade secret under Article 85 of the IP Law. In this case, the owner of the technical solution cannot request the simultaneous protection of the technical solution in the name of an invention and a business secret. Because the nature of the protection of these two objects is different, from the basis of establishing IP rights to them to the content of the rights of the owner, the term of protection … If the protection is in the form of patent, owner It is compulsory to carry out procedures to establish rights through registration and to protect only when a Patent is granted. In the process of establishing rights, publication of patent applications is a mandatory procedure. The publication of a patent application has made the technical solution unable to meet the criteria “secured by the owner with the necessary measures to keep that business secret from being disclosed and not easily accessible. to be protected in the name of a business secret. In the meantime, industrial property rights (SHCN) for business secrets are established on the basis of obtaining a business secret legally and performing the confidentiality of that business secret [4] . Therefore, the owner is required to choose, either to protect according to the invention, or to protect according to the business secret but cannot protect simultaneously a technical solution in the form of invention and business secret . In this case, “overlapping” protection does not occur. However, for some other IP objects, the phenomenon of “overlapping” protection is entirely possible. For example, a business name protected by IP law is a trade name. But in many cases, businesses get the business name and logo of the business registered for trademark protection [5] and / or protection as a work of applied art. In this case because the above signs are protected under different IP rights but are under the ownership of a single enterprise, they are protected by IP legislation and in this case does not happen conflict of rights and interests in the simultaneous protection of the above objects. This is the phenomenon of “overlapping” protection in IP protection. Thus, the phenomenon of “overlapping” in IP protection occurs when the same object is registered by the owner (a single entity) under different objects of IP rights.

In addition to the “overlapping” protection phenomenon, in fact, there are many cases where the trade name of an enterprise is identical or similar to that causing confusion with the label. protected trademarks of other subjects, or protected works of applied art that are identical or have similar signs causing confusion with trademarks or industrial designs already protected for other subjects. It is also possible that a protected trademark coincides with a geographical indication. There are even cases where product packaging is protected by an industrial design that contains signs that are identical or similar to a protected mark as a trademark or trade name or applied art work of a master. Other. In the above cases, there will be a pre-existing conflict of rights with IP rights. Because during the term of IP protection, the owner of IP objects is granted by the law and protects exclusive rights in the use and disposal of these objects. Although in the above cases of protection of IP rights to independent entities, the protection of IP objects that may be identical or similar to the one that confuses IP objects that existed before affecting the exclusive rights of IP right holders.

Conflicts of rights to protect IP objects often occur in the following cases:

Conflict of conflict in protecting trademark and applied art works

Trademarks are signs used to distinguish goods and services of different organizations and individuals. Under Vietnamese IP law, trademarks are protected if the following conditions are met: (i) is a visible sign in the form of letters, words, drawings, images, including holograms or conclusions combination of these elements, expressed in one or more colors; (ii) being able to distinguish goods and services of trademark owners from goods and services of other subjects; (iii) not under the circumstances provided in Article 73 and Article 74 [6] IP Law. Thus, any sign that satisfies the above conditions may be protected by law as a trademark. Meanwhile, Article 15 (2) of the Government’s Decree No. 100/2006 / ND-CP dated June 21, 2006 [7] design works of applied art are works expressed by lines, colors, shapes, layouts with useful features that can be attached to a useful object, mass produced by hand or by machine like: logo; handicraft goods; form shown on products, product packaging. With the above provisions, a logo, image, logo of the business, images of characters in comic books and / or other signs are likely to be protected as trademarks and / or works of applied art. Under the provisions of IP law, the mark of wanting to be protected is a trademark, the owner must carry out procedures to establish an IP right for the trademark in Vietnam NOIP in accordance with procedures and procedures prescribed by law. tight, in which there is a step of content examination to assess the possibility of protection. Meanwhile, the work of applied art is automatically protected without any procedures for establishing rights (although, in fact, owners of applied art works often register protection of these works at the Vietnam Copyright Office, but the registration of these works is not meant as a procedure for establishing rights but has important implications in protecting the rights of authors and owners. Actual copyright in practice). This increases the likelihood of an identical or confusing sign that a subject registers to protect the trademark but is registered by another subject to protect the applied art work and is granted a protection title, thus generating a phenomenon of conflict of rights in copyright and trademark protection.

The dispute between Hai Yen Sport Company (Hai Yen Company) and Star Sports Sport Company (Star Company) is a typical example. . Hai Yen Company has registered to protect the trademark “Hai Yen” with the same logo and has been granted the trademark registration certificate by the NOIP No. 63441 on June 7, 2005 and the Trademark Registration Certificate No. 73165 June 23, 2006. In 2008, the Star Company registered to protect the company’s logo in the form of applied art works at the Vietnam Copyright Office. In March 2008, Copyright Office granted Certificate of Copyright Registration No. 630 to Star Company. In fact, the trademark of Hai Yen Company contains a Logo similar to the Logo of Star Company. Therefore, the Director of Star Company believes that Hai Yen’s trademark has infringed copyright on the Logo of the Star Company and requires handling of infringement. However, the Director of Hai Yen said that it was the Star Company that violated the industrial property right in the trademark of Hai Yen. In this case, there has been a conflict of interest in the protection of trademarks and applied art works, so one of the two titles of protection should be canceled. Finally, the Copyright Office has decided to cancel the Copyright Certificate for the logo of Sao Sao because it has been declared dishonest in the application file for the certificate of registration of rights. author [8] .

Conflict impulse in protecting trademarks and geographical indications

Geographical indications are signs that indicate products originating from a specific region, locality, territory or country. According to Article 79 of Vietnam’s IP Law, geographical indications are protected if the following conditions are met: (i) products bearing geographical indications originating from a region, locality, territory or soy sauce with geographical indications; (ii) products bearing geographical indications with a reputation, quality or characteristics mainly due to geographical conditions of the region, locality or territory or country corresponding to such geographical indication; (iii) not in the cases specified in Article 80 [9] IP Law. However, also under the IP Law, regional, local, and territorial names may be protected as common trademarks or collective marks [10] , certification mark [11] if meeting the protection requirements for the respective trademark types. For example, Ba Vi cow’s milk and Protected milk are certified trademarks of dairy products from January 20, 2009 according to the protection title No. 4-0118140-000. Certification marks are also protected for Di Linh coffee and fig, Blao tea and fig … In case of having different subjects, register the place name (local name, region) for The various objects of IP rights are trademarks and geographical indications, and at this time, there will be a phenomenon of conflict of rights.

The Tan Trieu trademark dispute is a good example. The brand “Tan Trieu” was granted the Certificate of Trademark Registration No. 97289 dated December 11, 2006 by the Department of Intellectual Property of Tan Trieu Private Enterprise for many items related to pomelos such as: pomelo, pomelo, wine pomelo … This brand has been used by the company since 2006. In September 2009, Dong Nai Department of Science and Technology (Science and Technology) implemented the project “Establishing geographical indication rights for Tan Trieu pomelo products. The eternal”. In 2011 when the project was nearing completion, the Vietnam Intellectual Property Office said the “Tan Trieu” mark was protected as a trademark, so it was not possible to establish IP rights as a geographical indication. However, since 2005, Dong Nai People’s Committee has issued the document No. 8331 on December 23, 2005 on “Not accepting the use of Tan Trieu and Bien Hoa sites” as trademarks. According to this document, Dong Nai province does not approve Que Huong Private Enterprise to use the place name “Tan Trieu, Bien Hoa” as a trademark or a trademark element to apply for protection. IP rights. This enterprise is only allowed to use Bien Hoa and Tan Trieu sites attached to pomelo products, provided that the products must originate from Vinh Cuu district and meet the quality and quality requirements made by the Association. Vinh Cuu district garden and regulatory authorities. But Que Huong Private Enterprise still registered to establish SHCN with the trademark “New Dynasty” and was granted a protection title by the NOIP. In this case, the sign “Tan Trieu” cannot be protected at the same time as a trademark and geographical indication. Therefore, after negotiation failed to achieve results, the Certificate of exclusive use of the trademark of Tan Trieu Homeland Private Enterprise was requested to cancel.

Conflict impulse in protecting trademarks and industrial designs

Industrial design is the outside appearance of the product represented by shapes, lines, colors or combinations of these elements [12] . At first glance, there seems to be no conflict of interest in protecting these two subjects. As a matter of fact, the industrial design of the product may contain signs / signs identical or similar to that of a protected subject of another subject. For example, ADIDAS AG Company, Adi-Dassler-Strasse, 91074 Herzogenaurach (DE) (hereinafter referred to as ADIDAS), has requested the Vietnam NOIP to consider canceling the 14507 industrial design patent. on June 28, 2010 and the Industrial Design Patent No. 14608 issued on July 10, 2010 of Asian private shoe enterprises because they believe that in industrial designs, there are images ” four stripes “- elements that perform similar brand functions that confuse ADIDAS AG’s trademark” 3-stripe image “and” Asia’s use of “4-stripe pattern” for its “shoe” style is onions vi has bad intent to unfair competition with ADIDAS AG.

Conflicts of rights in the protection of trademarks and trade names

According to Clause 21 Article 4 of Vietnam IP Law, trade names are appellations of organizations and individuals used in business activities to distinguish business entities under the name call it with other business entities in the same field and business area. Business area is a geographical area where business entities have customers, customers or reputations. The structure of the trade name consists of two parts: Descriptive section and distinguished part (proper name). In order to be protected by IP law as a trade name of an organization or individual, it is necessary to meet the conditions specified in Clause 3, Article 78 of the IP Law, including: (i) Contains a proper name component to distinguish; (ii) Not coinciding with and similarly causing confusion with previously protected trademarks and geographical indications; (iii) Not identical or similar to confuse the trade name of another person used in the same field and business area. IP rights for trade names are established on the basis of the lawful use of such trade names corresponding to areas (territories) and business areas without carrying out registration procedures. Meanwhile, according to Item 1, Article 31 of the Enterprise Law 2005 and Clause 1, Article 13, Decree No. 43/2010 / ND-CP dated April 15, 2010 of the Government on business registration (Decree No. 43/2010 / ND-CP), enterprise name consists of two components: (i) type of enterprise; (ii) proper name of the business. Business name registration is conducted at the Department of Planning and Investment. Usually, the name of the business is also the trade name of the business. However, trade names are protected only when used in fact [13] . The registration of names of business organizations and individuals in business procedures must not be regarded as using that name but only a condition for the use of that name to be considered lawful. In fact, many businesses have taken their own trade names to register for trademark protection. And for many different reasons, there are many cases where a business name of an enterprise is identical or similar to the one that confuses a trade name and / or a protected trademark of another subject. This has resulted in a conflict of rights in the protection of trademarks and trade names.

Conflicts of rights in the protection of trademarks and trade names occur when: (i) signs of protection are identical or similar to cause confusion; (ii) these signs are protected simultaneously in the form of trade names and trademarks; (iii) these signs are protected for different rights holders.

Within the scope of this article, the author does not go into analyzing the resolution of conflict of rights in all IP objects mentioned above but only focuses on analyzing jobs. resolving conflicts of rights in the protection of trademarks and trade names.

  1. Resolve conflict of rights in protecting trademarks and trade names from a legal perspective to reality


IP Law Vietnam has regulations to prevent and resolve conflicts of interest in the protection of trademarks and trade names. Specifically, Article 73 (5) of the IP Law stipulates that a trademark is not protected if it contains: “A sign that misleads, confuses or deceives consumers about origin.” origin, features, utility, quality, value or other characteristics of goods or services. Concerning trade names, as per the above provisions, if the trademark is identical or similar. with another person’s trade name to the extent that it confuses consumers about the origin of the product, it will not be protected by law. Article 74 (2) point k of the IP Law stipulates one of the circumstances in which a trademark is considered to be incapable of discrimination and denied protection if the mark is identical or similar to a trade name. be used by others, if the use of such signs may confuse consumers about the origin of goods or services. Thus, in principle, to be protected by law, signs or signs used as trademarks must not be identical or similar to the trade name being used by other owners. At the same time, the law also stipulates the responsibilities of agencies such as the Ministry of Planning and Investment and the Ministry of Science and Technology in coordinating to guide the naming of enterprises in the business registration procedures to ensure does not violate the rights to previously protected trademarks, trade names, geographical indications [14] . In addition, Article 78 (3) of the IP Law also stipulates one of the criteria to determine the distinctive ability of a trade name – the condition for a protected trade name to be a trade name that is not identical or similar. level of confusion with another person’s trademark or with a geographical indication that has been protected before that trade name is used.

In addition to the provisions of IP law, the law on enterprises also has specific provisions to prevent the naming of enterprises infringing IP rights. of another subject. Article 17 of Decree No. 43/2010 / ND-CP stipulates that enterprises must not use trade names, trademarks or geographical indications of protected organizations and individuals to form the proper names of enterprises, unless approved by the owner of the trade name, trademark or geographical indication. Decree No. 43/2010 / ND-CP also encourages enterprises to register their business names, should consult registered trademarks and geographical indications and keep them at the Trademark Database. and geographical indication of NOIP.

The above rules are intended to prevent actual conflicts of interest from happening.

However, for many different reasons, there have been conflicts of rights in the protection of trademarks and trade names. That reason may be objective. As mentioned above, the name of the business is registered at the Department of Planning; Investment in accordance with Enterprise Law. Whereas IP rights to trademarks are established by the NOIP in accordance with IP law. For a large number of businesses to be established, it is inevitable that the owner of the business has its own name for the same business or similar to the trademark of another entity. That reason may also come from the intention of the business owner or the trademark owner, who wants to take advantage of the reputation of others and deliberately confuse consumers.

In addition to measures to prevent conflicts of rights in the protection of trademarks and trade names, Vietnamese law also stipulates measures to resolve conflicts. if they arise in reality,

Where a protected trademark contains an IPR element for a trade name

IP Law recognizes the principle of respect for predefined rights. Accordingly, IP rights may be invalidated (for rights established under protection titles) or banned from use (for rights not required to be established on the basis of protection titles) if impulsive. break with IP rights of other pre-established organizations and individuals [15] . Concerning trademarks and trade names, if any conflicts of interest occur in practice, the IP rights to the following entities may be canceled or banned.

In case the protected trademark contains an IPR infringement of a trade name, the infringing party may request the NOIP to cancel the trademark. force of protection title or / and sue in court to claim damages. In order to conclude whether or not the infringing element is needed, it should be based on at least two factors: (i) Is the use of the considered signs subject to legal use by the user? In order to make conclusions about this issue, it is necessary to consider whether the subject to be protected is protected by any law; (ii) is the subject considered to be the same or similar to cause confusion with the protected trade name of another subject? The statute of limitations for exercising the right to request the invalidation of protection titles for trademarks is five years from the date of granting the protection titles, except for cases where the protection titles are granted due to dishonesty of the applicants < a href = “#_ ftn16” name = “_ ftnref16”> [16] .

For example, the dispute between the trademark “Trung Son – mixed portland cement – Hoa Binh – Vietnam, image” of Xuan Mai Company and the brand name trade of Trung Son Cement Plant belongs to Binh Minh Construction and Tourism Group Joint Stock Company (Binh Minh Company). On May 16, 2007, the NOIP granted a certificate of registration of trademark No. 82099 for the trademark “Trung Son – Mixed Portland cement – Hoa Binh – Vietnam,” to Xuan Mai Company. In 2010, Binh Minh Company discovered on the cement bags of Xuan Mai Company to use this brand and said that this trademark coincides with the trade name of Trung Son Cement Plant and therefore requires the Department. Vietnam IP canceled the protection title 82099. On the basis of the argument: (i) the name of the project “Trung Son Cement Factory” is a commercial instruction in the form of trade name of Binh Minh Company. Construction in Trung Son commune (Luong Son, Hoa Binh) has been approved, approved and licensed by the Prime Minister, Hoa Binh Provincial People’s Committee and related ministries according to investment order and procedures since 1995. and since 2003, Hoa Binh Provincial People’s Committee has issued a decision to implement an investment project for construction of Trung Son Cement Plant; (ii) trade name “Trung Son Cement Factory” was established before the trademark “Trung Son – Mixed Portland Cement – Hoa Binh – Vietnam, image” was issued on 04/4 7/2005, (iii) the registration of the protection of the trademark for the purpose of unfair competition, Vietnam National Administration of Intellectual Property issued Decision No. 2470 / QD-SHTT and Decision No. 904 / QD-SHTT canceled one validity of Trademark Registration No. 82099, removing the “Trung Son” text in the trademark on [17] .

Where a protected trade name contains a trademark infringement of trademark infringement

In case the trade name contains an IPR infringement of a protected trademark, the trademark owner has the right to ask the court to ban it It is illegal to use such trade name and to claim damages. The trademark owner also has the right to ask the Business Registration Authority to require that an enterprise with an IPR infringement of its trademark change its name accordingly. In the above cases, it is necessary to determine whether a protected trade name contains a infringement of rights to a protected trademark. In order to conclude whether or not an infringing element is present, it is necessary to base it on at least two factors: (i) Is the use of the considered mark under the legal use of the user? In order to draw conclusions on this issue, just as in the case where a trademark contains an infringing element of a trade name mentioned above, it is necessary to consider whether the subject is protected under the law. , to what extent protection; (ii) Is the subject considered to be the same or similar to the extent that it is confusing to the protected trademark of another subject?

If you determine that an IPR infringement of a protected trademark is required, it depends on the trademark owner’s request to take appropriate measures. . Trademark owners may only request business registration agencies to force enterprises to change their names accordingly. Trademark owners may also sue in court asking the court to prohibit the violating party from using the trade name and claiming damages. In fact, in recent years, the IP rights disputes between trade names and trademarks have occurred a lot in Vietnam and the number of cases initiated at the TAND is increasing. For example, the trade name and trademark dispute between plaintiffs is Phuc Sinh Joint Stock Company with the address at H3 building, No. 384 Hoang Dieu Street, Ward 6, District 4, Ho Chi Minh City. Ho Chi Minh City (hereinafter referred to as plaintiff) and defendant is Phuc Sinh Agricultural Product Import Export Trading Joint Stock Company with the address at 1st floor of building No. 15 Dong Da Street, Ward 2, Tan Binh District, Ho Chi Minh City. HCM (hereinafter referred to as the defendant). In the petition, the plaintiff considers that the trade name of the defendant contains a part of the name of Sinh sinh which is an infringement of the IP right of the trade name and the trademark of the plaintiff (according to the Certificate of Trademark Registration). No. 73422 issued by the Department of Intellectual Property on July 6, 2006 protected Phuc Sinh’s trademark and picture). The Plaintiff requests the Court to consider forcing the defendant not to use the trade name containing the proper name “Phuc Sinh” and “PHUC SINH” in the business registration certificate. In this case, the trade name of the plaintiff used from September 13, 2001 under the Business Registration Certificate No. 4102006491 of the Planning Department & amp; Investment in Ho Chi Minh City. The trademark containing the word “PHUC SINH” was also protected since 2006. Meanwhile, by 2008, the defendant was approved by the Department of Planning & amp; Ho Chi Minh City Investment granted Business Registration Certificate. In this case, the Trial Panel has reviewed and affirmed the PHUC SINH sign that has been protected as a trademark and a trade name and also considers the scope of protection of the trademark. Does the Trial Panel evaluate whether the use of the Phuc Sinh mark in the trade name of the defendant is identical or confusingly similar to the trademark and the trade name of the plaintiff? Ho Chi Minh City People’s Court issued a decision to accept the plaintiff’s request that the defendant not use the trade name containing the proper name “Phuc Sinh” or “PHUC SINH” and “PHUCSINH”. The defendant is responsible for carrying out procedures to change the name of the Company so that it no longer contains the “Phuc Sinh” or “PHUC SINH”, “PHUCSINH” proper names in the business registration certificate [18] .

For another example, the plaintiff dispute is INTERBRAND GROUP Company with the address at 239 Marylebone Road London NW1 5QT United Kingdorm England and the defendant is a joint stock company. International brand (INTERBRAND JSC) is located at 4H1 Phan Dang Luu Street, Ward 3, Binh Thanh District, Ho Chi Minh City. It is also solved similarly to [19] . In the petition, the plaintiff said that the defendant is using the famous trademark Interbrand of the plaintiff and asks the Court to adjudicate forcing: (i) the defendant to terminate the INTERBRAND sign as a trademark or component. mainly of trademarks in business operations and business facilities, including electronic media and the Internet; (ii) terminate the use of the trade name (abbreviated name) containing the “INTERBRAND” sign in the business registration certificate and change the abbreviation to another name that does not contain another sign similar to the floating mark. reputation INTERBRAND of Interbrand Group; (iii) terminate the use of the domain name www.interbrand.com in providing investment consulting and branding services including brand advice. Requesting the defendant to change another domain name without an INTERBRAND sign or another sign similar to the famous trademark of Interbrand Group. Ho Chi Minh City People’s Court has approved the above requirements of the plaintiff on the basis of judging the INTERBRAND brand of Interbrand Group has been protected in Vietnam at the time before the international trademark joint stock company uses the label. This mark, the defendant’s trademark contains the infringing elements of the Interbrand Group.


The phenomenon of “overlapping” and the phenomenon of conflict of rights in protecting IP objects cannot be avoided, especially for trademarks and trade names. Building a reputation for a trademark or trade name requires a lot of effort from the right holder and when there is a conflict of rights in protection, either a trademark protection title is canceled or the trademark is Commercial use is prohibited. This causes considerable damage to IPR owners. In order to prevent conflicts of interest in protecting trade names and trademarks as well as effectively addressing this phenomenon when they arise in practice, it is necessary to have comprehensive and synchronous solutions. First of all, IP law should provide more specific regulations on the protection of trade names such as determining the scope of protection (the description and the proper name in the trade name are exactly the same as the name of the enterprise in the posting). Business registration or not?), when the trade name is protected (for example, the business has not been established but the name of the business has been shown in the transaction documents in preparation for the establishment of the business as clearing room premises, capital mobilization … when is the time of protected trade name?). Organizations and individuals, when naming their own businesses or building trademarks for their products, need certain knowledge about IP and should conduct searches to initially identify their protection capabilities. There should also be a mechanism of closer coordination between state management agencies on IP with the agency conducting business registration in order to limit the permission for business registration of business names identical to the protected trademark. households.

[1] TS Law, Ho Chi Minh City University of Law

[2] An invention is a technical solution in the form of a product or process to solve solve a specific problem by applying natural rules. (Article 4 (12) Vietnam IP Law).

[3] Business secrets are information obtained from financial investment activities , intelligence, has not been disclosed and can be used in business. (Article 4 (23) Vietnam IP Law).

[4] Article 6 (3 (c)) Vietnam IP Law

[5] Trademarks are signs used to distinguish goods and services from different organizations and individuals. (Article 4 (16) Vietnam IP Law

[6] Article 73 IP Law lists signs that are not protected in the name brand. Article 74 of the Law on Intellectual Property provides for the discrimination of trademarks, which lists the cases in which trademarks are considered to be indistinguishable.

[7] Government Decree No. 100/2006 / ND-CP dated 21/21 6/2006 detailing and guiding the implementation of a number of articles of Civil Code, IP Law on copyright and related rights.

[8] Source http://phapluattp.vn/218462p1014c1068/logo-hai-yen-cua-chong-hay-vo.htm , on 17 / 6/2008, accessed on April 2, 2013. However, in fact, the brand that Hai Yen Company is using is different from the exclusive trademark model, because there are more words Hai Yen on the lower half and the words Sports Co., Ltd. run the circle at The upper half, and the sample that is issued by NOIP does not exist. Sao Sao said that if Hai Yen Company uses the right protected trademark model, there is no similarity to cause confusion. However, in this article, the author does not go into analyzing the definition of scope of protection and consider infringing elements for this case.

[9] Article 80 of the IP Law lists cases of non-protection geographical indication.

[10] Article 4 (17) of the IP Law stipulates: “Collective trademark is trademarks used to distinguish goods and services of members of organizations being owners of such marks with goods and services of organizations and individuals who are not members of such organizations. “

[11] Article 4 (18) of the IP Law stipulates: “Certification mark is trademarks that the trademark owner allows other organizations or individuals to use on the goods or services of such organizations or individuals to certify the characteristics of origin, raw materials, materials and methods of production export of goods, ways of providing services, quality, accuracy, safety or other characteristics of goods or services branded. “

[12] Article 4 (13) IP Law

[13] According to Article 124, Clause 6 of Vietnam’s IP Law, use the trade name ” is the conduct of a commercial purpose by using a trade name to identify itself in business activities, expressing a trade name in transaction documents, signs, products, goods or packaging goods and means of providing services and advertising ”.

[14] See details in Article 17 of Decree 103/2006 / ND-CP Regulation detailing and guiding the implementation of a number of articles of the Intellectual Property Law on industrial property.

[15] For details see Article 17 of Decree 103/2006 / ND-CP Regulation detailing and guiding the implementation of a number of articles of the IP Law on industrial property.

[16] See details in Article 96 IP Law.

[17] Xuan Mai THH Company initiated an administrative case at the People’s Court of Hoa province Binh requested to cancel Decision No. 2470 / QD-SHTT and Decision No. 904 / QD-SHTT of the NOIP. The judgment of the Court of First Instance on December 14, 2012 accepted all the requirements of Xuan Mai Company, annulling the Decision No. 2470 / QD-SHTT and the Decision No. 904 / QD-SHTT of the NOIP. The NOIP and Binh Minh Company appealed. The judgment of the appellate court of TANDTC on April 9, 2013 revised the first instance judgment, upheld the Decision No. 2470 / QD-SHTT and the NOIP’s Decision No. 904 / QD-SHTT (Source: Trademark xi) trillions paid back to “the main owner”, the Vietnamese law newspaper, accessed April 15, 2013)

[18] Verdict 1075/2012 / KDTM-ST dated July 27, 2012 About dispute of IP rights of trade name & amp; trademark of HCMC People’s Court.

[19] Verdict No. 1388/2012 / KDTM-ST dated September 13, 2012 Regarding disputes on infringement of IP rights of HCMC People’s Courts.