Multinational groups often bring a large global trademark portfolio to Vietnam without a local strategy: under-filed classes, no Vietnam fame file, and purely reactive enforcement once squatting occurs. This article outlines a proactive protection strategy for a multinational’s well-known marks in Vietnam — filing priorities, the evidence file, monitoring and enforcement — organised as portfolio management rather than case-by-case firefighting.
Layer one: file correctly and completely in Vietnam
Vietnam applies the first-to-file principle under Article 90 of the IP Law: rights go to the earliest valid applicant, not to whoever has used the mark longest abroad. Groups should file in Vietnam early — directly with the Intellectual Property Office of Vietnam or via a Madrid international registration designating Vietnam — and use Paris Convention priority under Article 91 where a first filing abroad has just been made. The specification should cover: core classes for current products and services; adjacent classes in the three-to-five-year expansion plan; and the mark’s variants, including word and device forms, transliterations, Vietnamese translations, and the name Vietnamese consumers actually use for the product.
On defensive registration: Vietnamese law has no separate defensive-registration regime detached from use requirements. A registration left unused for five consecutive years without a legitimate reason can be terminated under Article 95.1(d). Filing far beyond any use plan therefore does not create a permanent shield; each supplementary filing should be tied to a plausible use scenario (a secondary product line, an ancillary service, a franchising programme), with use evidence preserved for every material mark.
Layers two and three: the fame file and the monitoring–enforcement system
Layer two is the Vietnam fame evidence file under Article 75, updated annually as a legal asset: Vietnamese sales, advertising spend, media coverage, periodic recognition surveys and foreign fame decisions. This file is the ammunition for opposing conflicting applications, cancelling squatted registrations and enforcing cross-class rights under Article 129.1(d); having it ready materially shortens reaction time when an incident occurs.
Layer three is a monitoring and enforcement cycle: watching the Industrial Property Gazette to oppose within the three-month window under Article 112a (after Law No. 131/2025); monitoring e-commerce platforms, social media and .vn domain registrations; and enforcement channels including platform complaints, administrative action, border control measures against counterfeit imports and exports under the framework for IP protection at the border, and civil litigation where needed. Each channel should have template files ready (certificates, powers of attorney, genuine-versus-fake identification guides) so action takes days rather than weeks.
Budgeting protection: structure instead of a fixed figure
There is no single ‘standard’ budget for every group, because costs depend on the number of marks, the number of classes, how counterfeited the sector is, and the intensity of Vietnamese marketing activity. A sound budget is structured: fixed annual costs (renewals as they fall due — marks last ten years and are renewable repeatedly under Article 93, domain maintenance, gazette and online watching services), per-matter costs (oppositions, cancellations, enforcement actions, recognition surveys), and a litigation reserve. The portfolio should be reviewed annually: drop registrations with no remaining strategic value to cut maintenance cost, and concentrate budget on core marks facing actual infringement.
Finally, the strategy only works with a clear owner: global legal keeps the common standards, while a Vietnam team or representative tracks the gazette, the market and deadlines. Most well-known mark failures in Vietnam stem not from a lack of rights but from late detection and unprepared evidence — both organisational problems, solvable by process.
Frequently Asked Questions
How should a multinational group build its trademark protection strategy in Vietnam?
In four layers: (1) file early and completely in Vietnam under the first-to-file principle in Article 90 — core classes, three-to-five-year expansion classes, and word, device, transliteration and translation variants; (2) build and annually update a Vietnam fame evidence file under Article 75; (3) monitor the gazette, e-commerce platforms, social media and domain names, and oppose in time; (4) keep enforcement channels ready, from platform complaints and administrative action to border control and litigation.
Which classes should be filed for comprehensive protection?
Prioritise by risk and business plan: first, the goods and services actually sold in Vietnam; next, adjacent classes prone to squatting or confusion (for example retail services, advertising, software accompanying the product); then classes for product lines on the three-to-five-year roadmap. In each class, file the word mark, the device mark, and the common Vietnamese transliteration or rendering of the brand, because squatters usually choose the variant closest to how Vietnamese consumers identify the brand.
Should defensive trademarks be registered?
Vietnam has no separate defensive-registration regime, and a mark unused for five consecutive years without a legitimate reason can be terminated under Article 95.1(d). Defensive filings remain useful for adjacent classes with plausible use scenarios and for transliteration or translation variants prone to squatting, but blanket filing across every class without use plans and preserved use evidence both inflates maintenance cost and leaves the portfolio fragile to termination actions.
What is a typical annual trademark protection budget?
There is no standard figure for every group; budget by structure: fixed costs (renewals, domain maintenance, watching services), per-matter costs (oppositions, cancellations, enforcement, recognition surveys), and a dispute reserve. Scale depends on the number of marks and classes, counterfeiting intensity in the sector, and the level of activity in Vietnam. An annual portfolio review — cutting registrations with no remaining value and concentrating resources on core marks — is the most effective way to control the budget.
FLAT Law Firm works with multinational groups to design and run portfolio-based trademark protection strategies in Vietnam: filings, fame evidence, monitoring and enforcement. Contact us for a full review of your current portfolio.
This article has been quality-reviewed by the FLAW AI Legal Council
