Receiving a notice that your trademark application has been refused is not uncommon in Vietnam. What matters is understanding the exact ground for refusal, because each ground opens a different route to overcome it — and since 1 April 2026, the new legal framework and faster examination timelines have created additional opportunities for applicants.
The two groups of grounds for refusing a trademark
Vietnamese law divides refusal grounds into two groups. The first is absolute refusal — signs prohibited from protection under Article 73 of the Law on Intellectual Property (Consolidated Document 67/VBHN-VPQH), covering 7 groups: national flags, emblems and anthems; symbols of state agencies and international organisations; names and images of leaders, national heroes and celebrities; certification, inspection and warranty marks of international organisations; signs that mislead or deceive consumers; the inherent shape of goods or shapes dictated by technical characteristics; and signs containing reproductions of works without the owner’s permission.
The second group — and the most common in practice — is lack of distinctiveness under Article 74.2 (points (a) to (l)). Frequent scenarios include: signs describing the goods or services (point (c)); signs identical or confusingly similar to marks filed earlier, including international applications designating Vietnam (point (e)); signs identical or similar to well-known marks (point (i)); marks already widely used by others (point (g)); and marks whose validity expired less than 3 years ago (point (h)).
Applicable legal framework and effect
The current rules are consolidated in Consolidated Document 67/VBHN-VPQH (23 March 2026) of Law on Intellectual Property 50/2005/QH11, incorporating five amendments: 36/2009/QH12, 42/2019/QH14, 07/2022/QH15 (effective 1 January 2023), 93/2025/QH15 (effective 1 October 2025) and 131/2025/QH15 (effective 1 April 2026). The guiding decree is Decree 65/2023/ND-CP (amended by Decrees 15/2026, 33/2026 and 100/2026/ND-CP, effective 1 April 2026). Notably, Circular 10/2026/TT-BKHCN (effective 1 April 2026) guides the Law on Intellectual Property and Decree 65/2023 and replaces Circular 23/2023/TT-BKHCN — all current procedural references must follow Circular 10/2026.
Examination procedure and the “intended refusal” notice
Before issuing a formal refusal, the Intellectual Property Office of Vietnam must notify the applicant of its intended refusal and set a 2-month deadline for the applicant to respond or remedy deficiencies (Article 71.3 of Circular 10/2026/TT-BKHCN — formal examination stage). If no response arrives by the deadline, the refusal decision is issued within 15 working days. This stage is the “golden window” to save the application — many cases are resolved here without ever reaching a complaint.
Priority order of remedies when an application is refused
The grounds for a refusal decision are set out in Article 117 of the Law on Intellectual Property: the subject matter fails the protection conditions; the applicant has no registration right or filed in bad faith; breach of the first-to-file principle (Article 90); or amendments to the application that broaden the disclosed scope or change the subject matter’s nature. Depending on the cause, the remedies should be prioritised as follows.
1. Amend, supplement or divide the application (Article 115)
Before the Intellectual Property Office notifies an intended refusal or issues a protection title, the applicant may amend, supplement or divide the application — limited to not broadening the disclosed scope and not changing the subject matter’s nature (Article 115.3). This is the most flexible tool: narrowing the list of goods or services to avoid conflict with a cited mark is a classic example.
2. Argue during examination
For descriptiveness refusals (Article 74.2(c)), the applicant may prove the sign has acquired distinctiveness through use before the filing date — with evidence of extensive use such as turnover, duration and geographical scope (Article 76.5 of Circular 10/2026/TT-BKHCN). For conflict refusals (Article 74.2(e)), the differences between the signs and the goods/services lists need analysis.
3. Suspend examination to “clear” the cited mark (Article 114.3a)
A new provision allows requesting suspension of substantive examination in order to seek termination of the cited mark — on the ground of non-use for 5 consecutive years (Article 95.1(d)) — or invalidation of its title (Article 96). This route fits Article 74.2(e) or (h) situations where the cited mark is effectively “dead”.
4. Complain or sue (Article 119a)
The applicant may complain about the refusal decision or file a lawsuit. Under Circular 10/2026 (Chapter IX, Articles 116–119), a “decision refusing to grant a protection title” is subject to complaint; the first-instance authority is the Director General of the Intellectual Property Office, the second is the Minister of Science and Technology. Time limits: 90 days for the first complaint, 30 days for the second (Law on Complaints, as amended by Law 136/2025/QH15, effective 1 July 2026).
5. Withdraw and refile (Article 116)
When the above routes are not viable, withdrawing and filing a fresh application with an adjusted mark is the last resort — weighing the risk of losing the priority date and of intervening filings.
Key point: no amendment of the application during the complaint stage
A significant new point in Circular 10/2026 that many applicants miss: during complaint settlement, requests to amend or supplement the application are not accepted — neither the mark specimen nor the goods/services list (Article 116.3 of Circular 10/2026/TT-BKHCN). Any amendment must be made before the refusal decision is issued. Do not “save” amendments for the complaint stage.
New processing timelines under Law 131/2025
From 1 April 2026, Law 131/2025/QH15 has shortened trademark processing considerably: applications are disclosed immediately upon receipt (new Article 110.1a); the publication period is cut from 2 months to 1 month (Article 110.3); substantive examination is cut from 9 months to 5 months (Article 119.2b); and an expedited 3-month examination procedure is added (new Article 119.2a). Faster timelines mean applicants must prepare their files and refusal-response strategy from the outset.
Risks and practical recommendations
The biggest risk is missing the 2-month deadline to respond to the “intended refusal” notice — once the formal refusal issues, the amendment window closes. Practical recommendations: conduct a registrability search before filing; monitor every notice from the Intellectual Property Office closely; prepare use evidence in advance if the mark has descriptive elements; and when a cited mark blocks the way, assess early the option of seeking termination under Article 95.1(d).
Frequently asked questions
Can a mark refused for descriptiveness be saved?
Possibly — by proving acquired distinctiveness through extensive use before the filing date (Article 74.2(c) of the Law on Intellectual Property; Article 76.5 of Circular 10/2026/TT-BKHCN), or by narrowing the goods/services list under Article 115.
Can the application be amended while complaining about a refusal?
No. Article 116.3 of Circular 10/2026/TT-BKHCN provides that no amendment or supplementation of the application is accepted during complaint settlement. Amendments are only possible before the refusal decision.
What are the time limits for complaining about a trademark refusal?
90 days for the first complaint and 30 days for the second under the Law on Complaints (as amended by Law 136/2025/QH15). The first-instance authority is the Director General of the Intellectual Property Office; the second is the Minister of Science and Technology.
What if the cited mark has not been used for years?
The applicant may request suspension of substantive examination (Article 114.3a of the Law on Intellectual Property) to seek termination of the cited mark for 5 consecutive years of non-use (Article 95.1(d)) or invalidation of its title (Article 96).
Sources
- Law on Intellectual Property 50/2005/QH11, consolidated in Consolidated Document 67/VBHN-VPQH (23 March 2026) — Articles 73, 74.2, 90, 95.1(d), 96, 110.1a, 110.3, 114.3a, 115, 116, 117, 119.2a, 119.2b, 119a (amended by Law 131/2025/QH15, effective 1 April 2026);
- Circular 10/2026/TT-BKHCN (effective 1 April 2026) — Articles 71.3, 73–80, 76.5, Chapter IX (Articles 116–119);
- Decree 65/2023/ND-CP (amended by Decrees 15/2026, 33/2026, 100/2026/ND-CP, effective 1 April 2026);
- Law on Complaints (amended by Law 136/2025/QH15, effective 1 July 2026) — Articles 9, 33.
Disclaimer: This article is for general reference only and does not replace legal advice for any specific case.
Content transparency: Content quality-checked by the AI Legal Council; not reviewed by a human lawyer.
Related articles
If you need assistance handling a refused trademark application or building a filing strategy in Vietnam, contact FLAT LAW FIRM for advice.
