Build the Evidence Map Before Filing a Vietnam Trademark Cancellation
Le Quang Vinh | Bross & Partners
A bad faith allegation may begin with a striking resemblance between two marks. The evidence must still establish the facts required by the ground pursued. A business may have sold branded goods in Vietnam for years yet struggle to prove the recognition claimed before a competing application was filed.
This final article in “Vietnam Trademark Cancellation: Misconceptions That Can Cost the Case” follows Parts 1 and 2 on choosing the legal ground and the five-year limitation, and Part 3 on the reach of the earlier right. Four Vietnamese decisions—PARAGON, the S device, LOGIFORM and NPR—illustrate a different question: does the evidence prove the facts needed to succeed?
Build the evidence map before building the evidence bundle. A checklist records available documents. A map connects them to the required fact, the critical date, the relevant sign and market, and corroborating sources. It helps both parties identify an evidence gap that could determine the outcome.
PARAGON and LOGIFORM applied Article 74.2(g); the S-device and NPR decisions applied earlier legislation. Their evidential reasoning is useful, but the older decisions do not state the current statutory test. The analysis below concerns proof of earlier use and wide recognition. The paired illustrations identify each party’s mark without assuming that visual similarity establishes the earlier protection claimed.
PARAGON and corroboration across several sources
Decision No. 224930/QĐ-SHTT.TP of 30 September 2025 cancelled Registration No. 396744 for “P PARAGON, device”, covering water pumps and air blowers. The challenged application was filed on 22 July 2019. VNIPO found the challenged sign confusingly similar to the earlier device mark and the goods identical.
The cancellation requester alleged an intention to obstruct its trade and appropriate its reputation. VNIPO questioned whether the matching design could have arisen by chance. Its conclusion rested on Article 74.2(g) and former Article 96.1(b), requiring proof of earlier use and recognition.
| Mark relied on by the cancellation requester | Mark under challenge |
Distribution contracts dated from 2003. Invoices and customs declarations recorded repeated imports, and domestic distributors supplied sales information. Vietnamese-language catalogues, exhibitions and local press coverage concerned promotion. Customer confirmations and supply contracts addressed use in industrial and construction projects.
VNIPO concluded that the earlier mark had been used continuously and was recognised and trusted by a significant segment of consumers, partners and customers in the pump sector. Together, the records of imports, distribution, promotion and customer use supported that conclusion.
The evidential value lies in corroboration across sources addressing the same market position. Separate documents are not necessarily independent sources. PARAGON sets no minimum sales figure or document count: the records must be read together, alongside the findings on the signs and goods.
The S device and the gap between transactions and recognition
Decision No. 5973/QĐ-SHTT of 30 November 2022 rejected cancellation of Registration No. 77239 for a stylised S covering drill bits for electric drills. The challenged application was filed on 4 March 2005. Applying Article 6.1(e), read with Article 29.2(d), of Decree No. 63/CP, VNIPO examined whether the earlier sign had been used and widely recognised in Vietnam.
The cancellation requester argued that the registrant must have known its mark and that the resemblance was no coincidence. The registrant denied prior knowledge and claimed independent creation. Rejection for insufficient proof of recognition was not a finding of good faith.
| Mark relied on by the cancellation requester | Mark under challenge |
Four invoices concerned imports in 1999, 2000, 2006 and 2007; the requester also cited Vietnam revenue figures for 2004–2007. VNIPO nevertheless found the material insufficient, noting the absence of adequate supporting evidence on sales, quantities consumed, distribution and advertising that would demonstrate recognition among Vietnamese consumers in the relevant field before filing.
The published reasoning suggests that timing was not the only problem: two import transactions preceded filing, and the revenue period included 2004. It does not explain the weight given to the limited pre-filing material or how the revenue figures were substantiated.
An “invoices supplied” entry therefore leaves the central question unanswered: how do the transactions establish recognition among the relevant public? A registrant can accept earlier sales while disputing that conclusion. PARAGON and the S-device decision illustrate different evidential outcomes, not a calculable number of invoices separating success from failure.
LOGIFORM and recognition in a B2B market
Decision No. 205218/QĐ-SHTT.IP of 15 September 2025 cancelled Registration No. 244923 for LOGIFORM, covering Class 35 trading services for specified joints and connectors. The cancellation requester relied on earlier use for industrial products, including joints, pipes, roller conveyors and supports. VNIPO connected those goods with the challenged services. The challenged application was filed on 31 December 2013, which was the critical date for the earlier-use inquiry.
| Mark relied on by the cancellation requester | Mark under challenge |
VNIPO considered import declarations from 2008–2012, a distribution agreement, establishment of a Vietnamese company and factory in 2011, and catalogues from 2010 and 2012. It linked these to sustained commercial presence and some recognition in the industrial sector.
The cancellation requester expressly alleged bad faith aimed at exploiting its reputation. VNIPO’s stated basis for cancellation was the conflict with a mark used and widely recognised before filing under Article 74.2(g), without a separate determination of bad faith.
This was a business-to-business, or B2B, market. The relevant public was therefore the specialised purchasing community, not the public at large. In my reading, VNIPO explained commercial presence more fully than why that presence met the recognition threshold. Sustained market presence alone should not be treated as sufficient under Article 74.2(g).
The evidence must identify the relevant purchasing community and show how that community encountered the mark. A factory or distribution channel may support that inference, but does not establish recognition by itself. Although the registrant did not respond, VNIPO examined the evidence and gave substantive reasons for cancellation.
NPR and proof of facts at the critical date
Decision No. 5285/QĐ-SHTT of 19 November 2021 rejected a request to cancel the NPR word element within Registration No. 15806 for piston rings for engines in Class 7. The challenged application was filed on 18 July 1994. The cancellation requester asserted Vietnamese use since 1985; the registrant denied knowledge of its mark when filing.
| Mark relied on by the cancellation requester | Mark under challenge |
| |
VNIPO found no material establishing the claimed use from 1985. Revenue and advertising figures concerned 1997–2001 and did not establish use and wide recognition in Vietnam before the 1994 filing. Additional material sought to substantiate the earlier position had not been supplied.
The critical date concerns when the required facts must have existed. A later document may record earlier events, so its preparation date alone does not decide its probative value. Equally, contemporaneous evidence must be examined for what it actually proves. In NPR, the figures described later trading rather than the position before filing.
This differs from Part 2’s question about the five-year limitation. Even where a request remains open, the documents must establish the facts at the date required by the substantive ground. The published NPR record gives no basis for assuming the missing historical proof was readily obtainable.
Review the evidence before deciding to challenge or defend
The four decisions expose different questions for the map: whether sources corroborate recognition, whether transactions establish more than sales, whether the evidence reaches the relevant industrial purchasers, and whether the documents reach the critical date. These questions should be resolved before the business commits further resources to proceedings.
For the cancellation requester, meeting the burden of proof requires documents that support the chosen ground. For the registrant, the same review identifies unsupported assertions and tests whether its account of independent adoption is consistent with contemporaneous records. Both sides need to distinguish evidence suggesting knowledge or copying from proof of the other facts the ground requires.
The series ends with four questions: What is the correct ground? Is that ground still available? How far does the earlier right reach? Can the required facts actually be proved? The last question prevents a plausible legal theory from being mistaken for a provable case.
None of the four decisions applied bad faith as a standalone ground. They show instead why allegations of knowledge, copying or improper motive must be separated from the earlier-use and recognition requirements on which VNIPO actually decided the requests.
This article provides general information as at September 2026 and does not constitute legal advice. The applicable legal framework and evidentiary assessment may depend on the filing date, transitional provisions and the particular administrative record.
Bross & Partners assists brand owners, registrants and instructing counsel in bringing or defending trademark cancellation actions in Vietnam. We assess whether the available record supports the applicable ground at the critical date. Contact Le Quang Vinh at Bross & Partners.
LinkedIn | Email: vinh@bross.vn | Mobile: +84 903 287 057
WhatsApp: +84 903 287 057 | Microsoft Teams: vinh@bross.vn
Để lại một bình luận