I. Judgment No. 08/2025/KDTM-PT: Dispute over trademark assignment agreement & apparent authority

1. Case Overview

• Adjudicating Body: The High People’s Court in Hanoi.

• Judgment Date: September 16, 2025.

• Plaintiff: M International Trading Investment JSC ("Company M").

• Defendant: N Company Limited ("Company N").

• Subject Matter: Assignment Agreement of Trademark "O" No. 3008/2021/HĐCNQSHNH/NLC-RS dated August 30, 2021 (Contract Value: VND 1,200,185,881).

2. Key Arguments

• Plaintiff (Company M): Claimed the agreement was null and void because the former General Director acted ultra vires (without Board approval as required by the Company Charter and violated a 2019 internal restructuring pact), and Company N failed to make direct monetary payments.

• Defendant (Company N): Argued that the signer was the legitimate legal representative on the Enterprise Registration Certificate (ERC). The internal Charter limitations were unknown to third parties. Furthermore, the assignment fee was fully satisfied through a lawful debt offset agreement against outstanding food supply invoices.

3. The Court’s Legal Analysis

• Protection of Bona Fide Third Parties: Under Article 87 of the Civil Code 2015, a legal entity is bound by civil transactions established by its legal representative. Internal limitations in the Company’s Charter are not opposable against a bona fide third party who acted in good faith without notice of such limitations.

• Validity of Debt Offsetting: Settling contractual payment obligations via debt reconciliation and set-off agreements is legally recognized. Company N fulfilled its payment obligations through verified trade debt offsets.

• Ruling: The Court dismissed Company M's appeal in its entirety and upheld the validity of the trademark assignment agreement.

4. Practical Takeaways for Corporate Counsel

• Commercial Verification: Parties acquiring IP assets should rely on the National Business Registration Portal to verify apparent legal authority.

• Internal Governance Control: Charter restrictions do not shield companies against external contracts executed by registered legal representatives. Corporate boards must enforce internal controls over corporate seals, digital signatures, and IP title certificates.

II. Judgment No. 20/2024/KDTM-ST: Landmark Trademark Infringement Judgment in the Dairy Industry 

1. Case Summary

• Adjudicating Court: Hanoi People’s Court.

• Judgment Number: 20/2024/KDTM-ST (Rendered on September 10, 2024).

• Plaintiff: AbLa Nutrition Corporation (USA) – Lawful owner of well-known registered trademarks in Vietnam for over 25 years (Classes 05 and 29: "ENS", "PES", "GLUR", "PROS", Giraffe device).

• Defendant: NF Food JSC (Hanoi, Vietnam).

• Cause of Action: Trademark Infringement (Article 129, IP Law) and Unfair Competition (Article 130, IP Law).

2. Facts and Parties' Submissions

Plaintiff’s Arguments and Claims:

• The Defendant commercialized products bearing confusingly similar marks on packaging and digital domains.

• Supported by the Expert Assessment Conclusion of the Vietnam Institute of Intellectual Property (VIPRI) and formal Administrative Sanction Decisions from the Market Surveillance Authority.

• Relief Sought: Injunction order; total recall and destruction of infringing goods; damage compensation of VND 281,628,000 (Bailiff costs: VND 41,028,000; VIPRI assessment fee: VND 40,600,000; Attorney fees: VND 200,000,000); and a mandatory public apology on VnExpress.net and Dantri.com.vn.

Defendant’s Defense:

• Argued that the goods were manufactured strictly under OEM contracts and designs provided by third-party distributors, citing limited legal expertise in intellectual property.

• At Trial: Consented to cease infringement, destroy inventory, and compensate VND 281,628,000; objected to the public apology on media outlets.

3. Court’s Findings and Analysis

• Infringement & Unfair Competition: The Plaintiff holds established, long-standing trademark rights. Manufacturing and distributing confusingly similar products constitutes both infringement and unfair competition.

• OEM Liability: Third-party contract manufacturing does not exempt the actual manufacturer from direct liability under Vietnamese IP Law.

• Legal Costs: Attorney fees, bailiff costs, and assessment expenses were supported by valid invoices and statutory provisions, justifying full recovery.

• Public Apology: Given the widespread public commercialization across online and offline channels, a published apology is legally warranted to remedy reputational damage.

4. Court Ruling (Disposition)

Pursuant to the Civil Code, Civil Procedure Code, and Intellectual Property Law of Vietnam:

1. Fully upheld the Plaintiff’s claims.

2. Ordered the Defendant to immediately cease all infringing conduct, recall and destroy all infringing goods/packaging, and remove digital commercial listings.

3. Ordered the Defendant to indemnify legal costs and damages totaling VND 281,628,000.

4. Mandated the Defendant to publish a formal public apology to the Plaintiff on VnExpress.net and Dantri.com.vn.

III. Appellate Judgment No. 06/2025/KDTM-PT on Trademark Infringement Dispute

1. Case Summary

• Case Title: Intellectual Property Dispute – Industrial Property Infringement regarding Trademark Rights in the Ice Cream Sector.

• Judgment Number: 06/2025/KDTM-PT dated September 10, 2025, by the Appellate Court of the Supreme People’s Court in Hanoi.

• Appealed Judgment: First-instance Commercial Judgment No. 07/2025/KDTM-ST dated February 24, 2025, rendered by the People’s Court of Hanoi.

• Key Background: In 2023, the Defendant was administratively sanctioned for using an old packaging design ("Kem X") infringing the Plaintiff’s protected trademark. Subsequently, the Defendant redesigned its packaging to exclusively bear the mark "X" and obtained an official non-infringement assessment conclusion. The Plaintiff initiated litigation seeking a market recall of the new packaging, VND 300,000,000 in damages, and a public apology. The First-instance Court granted partial compensation (VND 9,200,000 based on administrative sanction records) and dismissed all other claims. The Plaintiff appealed the entire first-instance judgment.

2. Proceedings and Litigants' Arguments

2.1. Arguments of the Plaintiff (T T 35 JSC)

• Exclusive Ownership: Holds valid trademark protection for "Kem X" under Class 30 (valid through June 22, 2025).

• Infringement Allegations: The Defendant distributed competing ice cream goods bearing confusingly similar signs. This violation was corroborated by official administrative sanction decisions in 2023 and Expert Assessment Conclusion No. NH353-23YC/KLGĐ issued by the Vietnam Intellectual Property Research Institute (VIPRI).

• Specific Claims:

  1. Compel the Defendant to cease manufacturing, recall, and destroy all ice cream products bearing the "X" sign currently circulating in the market.

  2. Claim material damages amounting to VND 300,000,000.

  3. Compel the Defendant to publish a public apology and retraction across three consecutive issues of national and municipal newspapers.

2.2. Arguments of the Defendant (T 35 Production, Investment & Trading JSC)

• Lawful Intellectual Property Rights: Holds Trademark Certificate No. 3414xx for the trademark "X" (valid through May 09, 2027).

• Compliance and Remediation: Following the 2023 administrative sanction and a 2-month operational suspension, the Defendant fully withdrew the old design and introduced a redesigned package bearing only the "X" trademark. VIPRI Assessment Conclusion dated August 21, 2023, confirmed that the new design did not cause consumer confusion.

• Defense against Damages and Apology: Argued that the new packaging is entirely lawful, and the Plaintiff failed to furnish any admissible evidence substantiating actual financial damages for the claimed VND 300 million.

3. Court's Analysis

The Appellate Panel examined the evidence and statutory grounds as follows:

• Regarding the Injunction and Recall of Redesigned Packaging: Pursuant to VIPRI Assessment Conclusions Nos. NH597-23YC/KLGĐ and NH644-23YC/KLGĐ, there is no legal basis to establish that the "X" sign on the Defendant's redesigned packaging infringes upon the Plaintiff’s trademark. The trial court's dismissal of this claim was well-founded.

• Regarding the Claim for Damages of VND 300,000,000:

  • For the new packaging: No infringement was committed; hence, no liability for damages arises.

  • For the 2023 past infringement ("Kem X"): The Plaintiff failed to produce audited financial statements or accounting ledgers evidencing actual profit losses. Therefore, the trial court’s calculation awarding VND 9,200,000 (reflecting the confiscated goods value of VND 8,800,000 plus illicit profits of VND 400,000 established in the Market Surveillance records) is equitable and lawful.

• Regarding the Public Apology Claim: The Defendant promptly complied with administrative sanctions, observed the suspension period, and proactively obtained IP assessment clearance before relaunching. Consequently, compelling a public apology in the press is groundless.

4. Court Holding (Disposition)

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

1. On the Merits: Dismiss the appeal filed by the Plaintiff (T T 35 JSC); Uphold the First-instance Commercial Judgment No. 07/2025/KDTM-ST dated February 24, 2025, of the People’s Court of Hanoi.

2. Damages Awarded: The Defendant shall pay compensation of VND 9,200,000 to the Plaintiff. All other claims are dismissed.

3. Appellate Court Fees: T T 35 JSC shall bear VND 2,000,000 in appellate commercial litigation fees (deducted from the advance fee paid).

4. Enforceability: This appellate judgment takes full legal effect from the date of pronouncement (September 10, 2025).

IV. Appellate Judgment No. 40/2025/KDTM-PT: Intellectual Property Dispute Concerning Trademark

I. General Information

• Case / Decision Title: Appellate Judgment No. 40/2025/KDTM-PT.

• Date of Pronouncement: April 25, 2025 (Trial hearing held on April 22 and 25, 2025).

• Adjudicating Body: The High People’s Court in Ho Chi Minh City.

• Type of Dispute / Legal Relation: Intellectual property dispute concerning trademarks (Industrial property rights dispute over trademarks in the PVC plastic pipe manufacturing sector).

II. Facts & Background of the Case

1. Pleadings of the Plaintiff (Binh M Plastic Joint Stock Company)

• Trademark Ownership: Established in 2004 as an industry-leading manufacturer of plastic materials, Binh M Company holds Trademark Registration Certificates Nos. 180399, 180400, 23374, and 73870 for the mark "Ống Nhựa Bình M" (Binh M Plastic Pipes) and the logo "BM Plasco - NHỰA BÌNH MINH".

• Alleged Infringement: The Defendant (Binh Minh V Company, established in late 2022) used a corporate name and manufactured PVC pipe products bearing the signs "BÌNH MINH V", "Nhựa Bình Minh V", and the logo "BVM Plastic", which allegedly created confusion as to the commercial origin/source of the products relative to the Plaintiff's goods.

• Evidentiary Grounds & Expert Assessment Conclusions:

  • Assessment Conclusions Nos. NH249-23YC/KLGĐ, NH827-23YC/KLGĐ, and NH826-23YC/KLGĐ issued by the Vietnam Intellectual Property Research Institute (VIPRI) concluded that the sign "NHỰA BÌNH M" and the figurative logo "BVM" affixed to the Defendant's PVC pipes constituted infringing elements against Binh M Company’s trademark rights.

  • An inspection, seizure, and administrative sanctioning record executed by the Market Surveillance Agency of Long An Province against the Quoc Tai store, which traded the Defendant’s plastic pipes.

• Plaintiff’s Claims (following partial withdrawal at first instance):

  • Compel the Defendant to remove all infringing signs containing "Binh M" from all products, business facilities/means, websites, and social media platforms.

  • Compel the Defendant to cease manufacturing and trading products bearing the infringing signs across both offline and online markets.

  • Compel the Defendant to issue a public apology and rectification published consecutively in three (03) issues of the Ho Chi Minh City Police Newspaper (Báo Công an TP. Hồ Chí Minh).

    (The Plaintiff withdrew its claims demanding a change of corporate name and a written undertaking against future violations).

2. Statements and Counterclaim of the Defendant (Binh Minh V Plastic Joint Stock Company)

• Affirmation of Lawfulness: The Defendant was lawfully incorporated under the Law on Enterprises in 2022. Its proper name "BÌNH MINH V" consists of three (03) syllables (12 letters), entirely distinct from "BÌNH M" (02 syllables, 08 letters), thus causing no likelihood of confusion.

• Regarding Product Labeling and IP Rights:

  • The Defendant was granted a Copyright Registration Certificate for the logo "BVM NHUA BINH MINH V" (applied art form), and the Intellectual Property Office of Vietnam (IP Vietnam) issued Decision No. 53459/QĐ-SHTT dated July 12, 2023, accepting the formal validity of the trademark application for the logo "BVM Plastic - ỐNG NHỰA CỦA NGƯỜI VIỆT" (Vietnamese People's Plastic Pipes).

  • Labels printed on the pipe bodies fully comply with the mandatory components under Decree No. 43/2017/ND-CP on goods labeling: BVM logo, product name, technical standards, full corporate name, and company address located in District 7, Ho Chi Minh City; the visual layout, color scheme, and typography/fonts are completely distinctive.

• Defendant's Counterclaim:

  • Compel Binh M Company to issue an apology in the Ho Chi Minh City Police Newspaper for sending official letters and petitioning regulatory authorities for inspections, which unlawfully hindered the Defendant's normal business operations.

    (The Defendant withdrew its claim to compel cessation of business interference).

3. Decision of the First-Instance Court

• First-Instance Judgment No. 144/2024/KDTM-ST dated July 12, 2024, of the People's Court of Ho Chi Minh City ruled to:

  • Dismiss/terminate proceedings regarding the withdrawn portions of the claims and counterclaims;

  • Dismiss the entirety of the Plaintiff’s (Binh M) remaining claims;

  • Dismiss the Defendant’s (Binh Minh V) counterclaim.

• Both the Plaintiff and the Defendant filed appeals against the first-instance judgment.

III. The Appellate Court’s Analysis / Reasoning

• Scope of Appellate Adjudication Regarding the Defendant’s Appeal:

  • The Defendant's appellate request seeking a declaration that its corporate name and pipe markings do not infringe upon the Plaintiff’s trademarks was not part of the original petition and was not adjudicated in the first-instance judgment. Therefore, pursuant to Article 293 of the Civil Procedure Code, it falls outside the scope of appellate review.

• Comparison of Registered Trademarks and Accused Signs:

  • An overall comparison between the Defendant's logo "BVM Plastic - ỐNG NHỰA CỦA NGƯỜI VIỆT" and the Plaintiff's logo "BM Plasco - NHỰA BÌNH M", as well as the linear label prints along the pipe bodies, reveals distinct differences in layout, size, typeface/font, presentation style, and geographical/trade origin indication. They are neither identical nor sufficiently similar to cause confusion among consumers pursuant to Point c, Clause 1, Article 129 of the Intellectual Property Law.

• Probative Value of Expert Assessment Conclusions and Opinion of IP Vietnam:

  • The sample assessed during the administrative sanctioning by the Long An Market Surveillance Agency originated from an initial pilot production batch of 50 pipes that had already been recalled, which did not accurately reflect the actual commercial labels currently in circulation and under dispute. Consequently, the assessment conclusions unilaterally requested by the Plaintiff lacked sufficient grounds to establish infringement.

  • In Official Letter No. 77499/SHTT-NH dated August 08, 2024, the Intellectual Property Office of Vietnam confirmed: The mark applied for registration by the Defendant is not confusingly similar in terms of layout and visual expression to the Plaintiff's protected trademark titles.

• Conclusion: The First-Instance Court's dismissal of all claims of the Plaintiff and the counterclaim of the Defendant was well-founded and strictly in accordance with the law. The Plaintiff's appeal is dismissed, and the first-instance judgment is upheld.

IV. Disposition / Holding of the Court

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

• On the Merits:

  • Dismiss the appeal filed by Binh M Plastic Joint Stock Company;

  • Uphold the First-Instance Commercial Judgment No. 144/2024/KDTM-ST dated July 12, 2024, of the People's Court of Ho Chi Minh City:

    • Terminate proceedings regarding the claims withdrawn by the parties.

    • Dismiss the entirety of the claims brought by Binh M Plastic Joint Stock Company regarding the mandatory removal of the sign "Binh M", the cessation of manufacturing/trading, and a public apology in the press.

    • Dismiss the counterclaim brought by Binh Minh V Plastic Joint Stock Company regarding the demand for an apology in the press.

• Court Fees:

  • First-Instance Commercial Court Fees: Each party shall bear VND 3,000,000 (fully offset against their paid court fee advances).

  • Appellate Commercial Court Fees: Binh M Plastic Joint Stock Company shall bear VND 2,000,000 (offset against its paid appellate fee advance; deemed fully executed). Refund the amount of VND 2,000,000 to Binh Minh V Plastic Joint Stock Company for the appellate court fee advance previously paid.

• Legal Effect: The appellate judgment takes immediate legal effect from the date of pronouncement (April 25, 2025).

See more at: Summary of 05 Judgments on Intellectual Property Disputes