Summary of 05 Judgments on Intellectual Property Disputes

A. Judgment No. 14/2026/KT-PT dated April 10, 2026, of the Appellate Court in Hanoi

I. Case Content

1. Statement of the Plaintiff (Company M)

Company M is the owner of the baby diaper trademarks "md" (Trademark Registration Certificate No. 453623 issued on May 23, 2023) and "MD" (Trademark Registration Certificate No. 521121 issued on December 25, 2024). On November 7, 2024, Company M discovered that the Facebook Fanpage "Lvietnam" was advertising and selling diaper products distributed by Company H using the signs "SBMD" and "momoDiamond", which are confusingly similar to Company M's protected trademarks. The products collected under Bailiff's Records (Nos. 694 and 728/2024/VB-TPLAB) were printed with packaging containing the name, address, QR code, and Business License of Company H. Assessment Conclusions Nos. NH781-24YC/KLGĐ and NH001-25YC/KLGĐ concluded that the signs "mD" and "MMDiamond" affixed to the packaging of the collected baby diaper products constitute elements of infringement upon the protected trademark rights of Company M.

Lawsuit Petitions:

• Compel Company H to immediately cease infringing acts and stop advertising counterfeit goods.

• Recall and destroy all counterfeit goods infringing upon the trademarks.

• Remove QR codes containing Company M's information.

• Issue a public apology and rectification in mass media (Fanpage "L Vietnam" or official channels). (At the first-instance trial, Company M supplemented a claim for damages of VND 500 million).

2. Statement of the Defendant (Company H)

• The Bailiff's Records compiled by the Plaintiff from social media data are unilateral and lack objectivity, as competent authorities have not verified whether the Fanpage "L Vietnam" or the products belong to Company H. The Defendant requested the exclusion of these documents.

• According to Official Letter No. 127/QLTTBG-TTPC dated February 10, 2025, of the Market Surveillance Department of Bac Giang Province, through direct verification at the manufacturing facility/warehouse, Company H does not manufacture, trade, or package diapers bearing the trademark "SBMD".

3. Decision of the First-Instance Court

• The People's Court of Bac Ninh Province decided not to accept all lawsuit petitions of the Plaintiff (Company M).

• The Plaintiff appealed, requesting the appellate court to vacate the first-instance judgment for a retrial in favor of accepting the lawsuit petition.

II. Findings of the Appellate Court

The Appellate Trial Panel concurred with the First-Instance Court and the representative of the People's Procuracy, making the following main findings:

• Trademark Ownership Rights: Company M is indeed the lawful owner of the registered and protected trademarks "md" and "MD".

• Proof of the Defendant's Infringing Acts:

  • Legal value of the Bailiff's Records: The Bailiff's Records (Nos. 694 and 728) drawn up by the Bailiff only recorded events occurring at a single point in time on social media and do not per se prove that the infringing acts were committed by Company H. The Plaintiff's unilateral collection of data without cross-checking/verifying with the Defendant prior to drawing up the bailiff's records fails to ensure objectivity.

  • The Plaintiff failed to provide documents/evidence proving that the Fanpage "Lvietnam" or the Website www.Lvietnam.com.vn is owned or managed by Company H (the Court and specialized agencies were also unable to collect such evidence).

  • Discrepancy in actual importation and inspection: The customs declarations showed that Company H imported brand "S" diapers, but Company M failed to prove that this imported cargo matched the goods bearing the infringing packaging. Conversely, the Market Surveillance Department of Bac Giang Province verified that Company H does not actually trade/package diapers bearing the "SBMD" trademark.

  • Regarding the supplemented claim for VND 500 million in damages: The Plaintiff's supplementation of the claim for damages at the first-instance trial exceeded the scope of the initial lawsuit; thus, the First-Instance Court's refusal to consider it was in accordance with the law.

 

IV. Decision of the Court

Pursuant to Clause 1 Article 308, Clause 3 Article 148 of the Civil Procedure Code:

1. On the merits: Dismiss the appeal of M Trading and Import-Export Joint Stock Company; uphold First-Instance Commercial Judgment No. 13/2025/KDTM-ST dated September 30, 2025, of the People's Court of Bac Ninh Province.

2. On court fees: Company M shall bear VND 2,000,000 in appellate commercial court fees (deducted from the advance payment made on its behalf by Mr. Nguyen Chi T).

B. Judgment No. 79/2026/KDTM-PT dated July 22, 2026, of the Appellate Court in Ho Chi Minh City

I. Case Content

1. Statement of the Plaintiff (Private Enterprise V)

• The Plaintiff owns Industrial Design Patent (IDP) No. 11395 (issued on December 25, 2007) and IDP No. 12312 (issued on September 10, 2008) for the product "Loudspeaker" (extended to May 2, 2022). The Defendant (Company G) utilized the aforementioned protected designs to manufacture "Horn Speakers" to supply the bidding package "Supply and installation of broadcasting equipment for 52 commune-level broadcasting stations" invested by the Department of Information and Communications of Province L (including 156 units of 100W–150W and 104 units of 50W–75W).

• Assessment Conclusion No. KD 104-19YC/KLGĐ dated December 6, 2019, concluded that the speaker design of Company G is an element of infringement upon the industrial design rights for "Loudspeaker" protected under IDP No. 12312 of the Private Enterprise.

• Lawsuit Petitions:

- Compel the Defendant to cease unauthorized use of the "Loudspeaker" industrial designs under IDP Nos. 11395 and 12312.

- Compel the Defendant to remove and destroy the infringing speaker products.

- Compel the Defendant to compensate for material damages (profits earned from the infringement): VND 2,000,000,000.

- Compel the Defendant to pay litigation expenses (sampling, expert assessment, representation fees): VND 300,000,000.

- Compel the Defendant to issue a public apology on electronic newspapers (vnexpress.net, etc.).

2. Statement of the Defendant (Company G / V1)

• Rebutted the lawsuit petitions: Did not commit any act infringing the industrial designs of the Plaintiff, pointing out design differences:

  • The Defendant's product consists of 5 flexibly joined parts.

  • The horn flare of Company G widens gradually, the speaker support stand has 2 posts opening at a 90-degree angle, and the speaker body has continuous curvature. In contrast, the protected product of V has a steep, straight horn mouth and only 1 support post.

  • Prevalence / Prior art: The horn speaker model had been widely used in Vietnam prior to 1989 (confirmed by the Broadcasting Station of District C) and globally for centuries. Private Enterprise V was not the creator of the original design.

  • Legality of the Assessment Conclusion: V2 Intellectual Property conducted unilateral assessment upon the one-sided request of the Plaintiff without the participation of the Defendant, thereby lacking objectivity.

• Expert Opinion of the Intellectual Property Office of Vietnam (IP Vietnam): Official Letter No. 3760/SHTT-TTKN dated September 24, 2025, of IP Vietnam affirmed that Company G's speaker model possesses significant differences and is not considered an infringement of the rights to IDP Nos. 11395 and 12312.

3. Decision of the First-Instance Court

• The People's Court of Ho Chi Minh City accepted all lawsuit petitions of the Plaintiff:

  • Compelled Company G to cease unauthorized use of the industrial design "Loudspeaker" under IDP Nos. 11395 and 12312.

  • Compelled the destruction of infringing speaker products.

  • Compelled compensation for damages of VND 2,000,000,000.

  • Compelled payment of assessment and appraisal costs: VND 19,750,000.

  • Compelled a public apology.

• The Defendant (Company G) appealed the entire first-instance judgment.

III. Findings of the Appellate Court

The Appellate Trial Panel examined the grounds and determined:

1. On assessment procedures and the legal value of expert documents: Under the Law on Intellectual Property and the Law on Judicial Expertise, an IP right holder only has the right to independently request an assessment after having requested procedural bodies to solicit one and being denied. In this case, the Plaintiff independently sought assessment at V2 Intellectual Property without a written request to the Court, which was non-compliant; this conclusion is for reference only. Conversely, the Court solicited expert opinions from the state management agency, IP Vietnam (Official Letters No. 3760 and 3102). IP Vietnam concluded: Company G's speaker products have substantial differences in the horn rim (stylized truncated cone with curved generatrix vs. straight generatrix of V) and color (blue-gray vs. dark orange).

2. On distinctiveness and elements of industrial design infringement: Pursuant to Article 126 of the IP Law, Article 10 of Decree No. 105/2006/ND-CP, and Article 12 of Circular No. 11/2015/TT-BKHCN, infringement only occurs when a product is a copy or is not significantly different from the protected design. Comparing 3 basic styling features (shape, lines, color), Company G's product has at least 02 significantly different features, sufficient to create a distinct overall visual impression on consumers. Therefore, Company G's product does not infringe the industrial design of Private Enterprise V.

3. On the term of protection: The IDPs of Private Enterprise V expired on May 2, 2022. The First-Instance Court's ruling ordering the Defendant to cease use and destroy products without categorizing the production timeline (before or after expiration) was inaccurate.

IV. Decision of the Court

Pursuant to Clause 2 Article 308 of the Civil Procedure Code:

1. On the merits: Accept the appeal of the Defendant (Joint Stock Company G / V1). Amend First-Instance Commercial Judgment No. 351/2025/KDTM-ST dated September 26, 2025, of the People's Court of Ho Chi Minh City.

• Dismiss all lawsuit petitions of the Plaintiff (Mr. Nguyen Van H1 - Owner of Private Enterprise V) requesting Company G to cease acts, destroy products, pay damages of VND 2,000,000,000, cover litigation costs, and publicly apologize.

2. On court fees & procedural costs:

• The Plaintiff (Mr. Nguyen Van H1) shall bear VND 75,395,000 in first-instance commercial court fees (deducted from VND 42,000,000 paid as advance court fees; Mr. H1 must pay an additional VND 33,395,000).

• The Plaintiff has fully paid VND 19,750,000 in procedural costs.

• The Defendant (Company G / V1) is not liable for appellate commercial court fees and shall be refunded the VND 2,000,000 paid as advance appellate court fees.

C. Judgment No. 01/2026/KDTM-PT dated March 25, 2026, of the Appellate Court in Da Nang

I. Case Content

1. Statement of the Plaintiff (Mr. Phung Van T2)

• Mr. T2 is the son of traditional herbalist Phung Nong (the late Mr. Phung N, deceased in 2016). Having been passed down the craft by his father and encouraged to open his own clinic to preserve the family brand, Mr. T2 opened his clinic in 2006 (moved to H L in 2012, granted business registration and Traditional Medicine Practice License).

• On April 15, 2015, Mr. T2 filed an application and was granted Trademark Registration Certificate No. 277115 on March 7, 2017, by IP Vietnam for the trademark "PHÙNG NỒNG" in Class 05 (Pharmaceuticals, herbal products, liniments, medicinal herbs, medicinal roots, dietary supplements).

• From mid-2022, he discovered that Mrs. Huynh Thi T1 (sister-in-law / daughter-in-law of Mr. N) was using the identical sign "PHÙNG NỒNG" on signboards, clinic names, packaging of herbal medicine/liniments, and internet/social media advertising.

• Lawsuit Petitions (after partial withdrawal at first instance):

  • Compel Mrs. T1 to cease infringing the "PHÙNG NỒNG" trademark and trade name for protected Class 05 products.

  • Compel the recall and destruction of all packages, labels, flyers, and signboards, and removal of online promotional information containing "PHÙNG NỒNG" for Class 05.

  • Recommend the Department of Health of Da Nang City to revoke and remove the name "PHÙNG NỒNG" from Medical Practice License No. 0417/SYT-GPHĐ issued on October 28, 2016, to Mrs. T1's clinic for Class 05.

2. Statement and Counterclaim of the Defendant (Mrs. Huynh Thi T1) & Related Party (Mr. Phung Huynh B)

• The name "PHÙNG NỒNG" is the birth name of Mr. Phung N, who founded the clinic in C H in the 1980s. Following his death in 2016, Mrs. T1 and her son, Mr. Phung Huynh B, inherited and maintained the facility under operating licenses. This name had been used long before Mr. T2 filed for registration. The Plaintiff registered it independently without any written transfer of rights from Mr. N; the mark lacked distinctiveness and conflicted with a prior trade name.

• Counterclaim (after partial withdrawal): Request the Court to invalidate IP Vietnam's Decision granting Trademark Registration Certificate No. 277115 dated March 7, 2017, to Mr. Phung Van T2.

3. Expert Opinion of the Intellectual Property Office of Vietnam (IP Vietnam)

• Mr. T2 is the lawful owner of Trademark Registration Certificate No. 277115 protected nationwide for Class 05.

• The sign affixed to the Defendant's products is identical to the protected mark; commercializing pharmaceutical products bearing this sign without permission is an infringement of rights under Clause 1 Article 129 of the IP Law.

4. Decision of the First-Instance Court

• First-Instance Judgment No. 15/2025/KDTM-ST dated August 22, 2025, of the People's Court of Da Nang City: Terminated the portions of claims withdrawn by the parties; accepted all remaining lawsuit petitions of the Plaintiff; dismissed the Defendant's counterclaim regarding the revocation of the protection title.

• The Defendant (Mrs. Huynh Thi T1) appealed the entire first-instance judgment.

III. Findings of the Appellate Court

1. On the legality and validity of Trademark Registration Certificate No. 277115:

• Mr. T2's registration dossier fully satisfied formal and substantive examination procedures under the 2005 IP Law (amended in 2009).

• Throughout the application and operating process (from 2006/2012 to grant in 2017), the late Mr. Phung N during his lifetime and other family members did not raise any dispute or opposition.

• Mrs. T1's ownership of real estate in C H following Mr. N's death does not equate to inheriting ownership rights to the lawfully protected trademark/trade name of Mr. T2.

2. On the act of infringing industrial property rights:

• All business licenses, practicing certificates, and trademark registration certificates of Mr. T2 were established prior to those of Mrs. T1. Mrs. T1's licensing procedures in 2016 were unilateral acts after Mr. N passed away.

• Mr. T2 holds nationwide exclusive protection for "PHÙNG NỒNG" under Class 05. Mrs. T1's commercialization of pharmaceuticals, herbal medicine, and liniments bearing the identical sign "PHÙNG NỒNG" without Mr. T2's consent constitutes IP infringement.

IV. Decision of the Court

Pursuant to Clause 1 Article 308 of the 2015 Civil Procedure Code:

• On the merits: Dismiss the appeal of the Defendant (Mrs. Huynh Thi T1); uphold First-Instance Commercial Judgment No. 15/2025/KDTM-ST dated August 22, 2025, of the People's Court of Da Nang City.

• On court fees: Exempt Mrs. Huynh Thi T1 from all appellate commercial court fees as she is an elderly citizen and has submitted a fee exemption application in accordance with statutory provisions.

D. Judgment No. 268/2025/KDTM-ST dated August 22, 2025, of the People's Court of Ho Chi Minh City

I. Case Content (Facts & Background)

1. Statement of the Plaintiff (T9 Co., Ltd.)

• Company T9 is the lawful owner of trademarks associated with "Phở Hùng" under Trademark Registration Certificates No. 147103 (May 31, 2010) and No. 84459 (July 16, 2007) issued by IP Vietnam.

• Company N2 used infringing signs including "Phở Ông H1", "PHỞ ÔNG HÙNG CHÍNH HIỆU and device" on signboards, fanpages, websites, and across restaurant chains in various provinces without paying royalties or obtaining permission from Company T9.

• Assessment Conclusions Nos. NN122-15YC/KLGĐ (April 8, 2015) and NH400-16YC/KLGĐ (October 5, 2016) of the Vietnam Intellectual Property Research Institute (VIPRI) determined that these signs constituted elements of infringement upon the trademark rights of Company T9.

• Initial Lawsuit Petitions:

1. Compel the cessation of use and removal of signboards/materials containing infringing signs.

2. Compel a public apology in 03 consecutive press editions.

3. Compel compensation for property loss (calculated based on hypothetical trademark licensing fees across 60 establishments): VND 11,200,000,000.

4. Compel compensation for reasonable costs incurred to prevent/mitigate damages and attorney fees: VND 282,680,000 (subsequently updated to VND 357,030,000 as of April 7, 2021).

• Amendment/Withdrawal of Petitions at the First-Instance Trial:

  • As the Defendant's infringing establishments had shut down, Company T9 withdrew the petitions requesting cessation of violations, removal of signboards, public apology, and the VND 11.2 billion property loss claim.

  • Maintained solely the claim for compensation of VND 357,030,000 (comprising attorney fees of VND 82,500,000 and costs for mitigating damages, bailiff records, and expert assessments of VND 274,530,000 accompanied by complete VAT invoices and supporting vouchers).

2. Statement of the Defendant (N2 Co., Ltd.)

• Absent from the trial, but submitted a self-declaration contesting the lawsuit petitions:

  • Contended that the trademark "Phở ông H1" had completely different layout, pronunciation (3 syllables vs. 2 syllables), color, font, and figurative elements (image of a man wearing glasses vs. a girl wearing a conical hat) compared to the protected mark.

  • Argued that VIPRI's conclusions lacked objectivity and the Plaintiff's claim for damages was groundless.

III. Findings of the Court

1. On procedural matters and partial withdrawal of petitions: As the Defendant was duly served but absent without legitimate reasons, the Court proceeded with an in absentia trial pursuant to Article 227 of the Civil Procedure Code. The partial withdrawal of claims by Company T9 was voluntary and aligned with Clause 1 Article 217; thus, the Court terminated proceedings regarding those claims.

2. On IP infringement: Pursuant to VIPRI's Assessment Conclusions, the signs "Phở ông H1" and "Phở ông H1 chính hiệu and device" affixed to Company N2's social media and advertising signboards constituted elements of infringement upon the trademark protected under Certificate No. 147103 of Company T9.

3. On damages (legal fees and prevention/mitigation expenses): The amount of VND 357,030,000 represents actual, reasonable costs incurred by the Plaintiff (supported by contract addenda, VAT invoices, receipts, and bank statements). Under IP law, this claim is fully substantiated.

IV. Decision of the Court

1. On termination of claims: Terminate proceedings regarding the claims of T9 Co., Ltd. for cessation of infringement, removal of infringing signs, public apology, and property loss compensation of VND 11,200,000,000.

2. On acceptance of claims: Accept all remaining claims of T9 Co., Ltd.:

• Compel N2 Co., Ltd. to pay damages to T9 Co., Ltd. in the amount of VND 357,030,000.

3. On court fees:

• The Defendant (N2 Co., Ltd.) shall bear VND 17,851,500 in first-instance commercial court fees.

• Refund to T9 Co., Ltd. the entire advance court fees paid amounting to VND 81,255,000.

E. Judgment No. 47/2026/KDTM-PT dated May 20, 2026, of the Appellate Court in Ho Chi Minh City

I. Case Content

1. Statement of the Plaintiff (T3 Co., Ltd.)

• Company T3 owns Trademark Registration Certificate No. 326167 issued on August 6, 2019, for the trademark "VIETNAM PEACE BELLA, device" in Class 41 (including beauty pageant organizing services).

• In 2022, Company Q and Ms. Pham Thi Kim D organized and promoted the contest "HOA HẬU HÒA BÌNH VIỆT NAM" on social media. The Plaintiff claimed this name was an equivalent translation/confusingly similar to its protected mark "VIETNAM PEACE BELLA", causing public confusion and infringing industrial property rights under Article 129 of the IP Law.

• Assessment Conclusion No. NH275–22YC/KLGĐ dated June 20, 2022, determined that the sign "HOA HẬU HÒA BÌNH VIỆT NAM 2022" affixed to contest application forms was an element of infringement upon Trademark Certificate No. 326167 of Company T3.

• Lawsuit Petitions against Company Q and Ms. Pham Thi Kim D:

(i) Compel cessation of infringing acts and stop using the trademark "HOA HẬU HÒA BÌNH VIỆT NAM" across all business facilities, media, and advertising channels.

(ii) Compel removal of the trademark "HOA HẬU HÒA BÌNH VIỆT NAM" nationwide.

(iii) Compel a public apology and rectification in 03 consecutive press editions (Thanh Nien, Tuoi Tre...) and the organization of an official press conference to apologize.

2. Statement of the Defendants (Q Joint Stock Company and Ms. Pham Thi Kim D)

• The contest is associated with the international brand "Miss Grand International", widely recognized since 2013 globally and since 2017 in Vietnam. The Defendants hold Copyright Registration Certificate No. 3386/2022 for the Logo "MISS GRAND VIETNAM HOA HẬU HÒA BÌNH VIỆT NAM" and filed valid trademark applications with IP Vietnam.

• Rebuttal of Plaintiff's grounds:

  • Company T3 has not been granted any protection title by IP Vietnam for the Vietnamese phrase "HOA HẬU HÒA BÌNH VIỆT NAM".

  • T3's contest was officially approved by authorities only under the title "Miss Peace Vietnam 2022".

  • VIPRI's assessment was inaccurate as it intentionally translated and combined separate words ("PEACE" and "BELLA") to infer similarity, whereas pronunciation and textual presentation between the two signs are entirely distinct.

3. Decision of the First-Instance Court

• First-Instance Judgment No. 353/2025/KDTM-ST dated September 26, 2025, of the People's Court of Ho Chi Minh City: Dismissed all lawsuit petitions of T3 Co., Ltd.

• The Plaintiff appealed the entire first-instance judgment.

III. Findings of the Appellate Court

1. On scope and ownership rights regarding the disputed mark:

• Both Company T3 and Company Q filed trademark applications for the phrase "HOA HẬU HÒA BÌNH VIỆT NAM", and both applications were only at the stage of formal acceptance; neither party had been issued an official protection title.

• Under Point a Clause 3 Article 6 of the IP Law, industrial property rights to a trademark are established based on the granting decision of a protection title. As T3 has not been granted a title for "HOA HẬU HÒA BÌNH VIỆT NAM", it has not acquired the owner's right to prohibit others from using it.

• Administrative approvals regarding event naming do not establish industrial property rights under the well-known trademark regime.

2. On comparison of infringing elements and the Assessment Conclusion:

• The protected mark "VIETNAM PEACE BELLA, device" is entirely distinct in text, visual presentation, and pronunciation from the phrase "HOA HẬU HÒA BÌNH VIỆT NAM".

• The assessor's separation of English ("PEACE") and Italian/Spanish/Greek ("BELLA") words to translate and infer similarity lacks sound legal grounding.

IV. Decision of the Court

Pursuant to Clause 1 Article 308 of the Civil Procedure Code:

• On the merits: Dismiss the appeal of T3 Co., Ltd.; uphold First-Instance Commercial Judgment No. 353/2025/KDTM-ST dated September 26, 2025, of the People's Court of Ho Chi Minh City.

• On court fees: T3 Co., Ltd. shall bear VND 2,000,000 in appellate commercial court fees (deducted from advance fees paid; fully executed).