Case 6 | Vietnamese Trademark Opposition Involving a Smart Hardware Enterprise — A Two-Track Approach Based on Priority and Bad Faith to Combat Bulk Trademark Stockpiling
[Case at a Glance]
(1) Case Background
A leading Chinese open-source hardware and edge AI technology enterprise principally supplies Class 9 electronic hardware products, including embedded computers, single-board computers and microcontrollers. Its core word brand has been in continuous commercial use since 2008, and it has established a portfolio of trademark registrations across multiple countries and regions worldwide. In early 2026, the enterprise first filed a Class 9 trademark application for its core brand in Hong Kong, China. It subsequently filed the corresponding trademark registration application with the Intellectual Property Office of Viet Nam within the six-month priority period under the priority rules of the Paris Convention for the Protection of Industrial Property, claiming a priority date corresponding to the Hong Kong filing date.
A local Vietnamese enterprise filed the trademark application at issue after our client's priority date but before our client's application was filed in Vietnam. The sign reproduced in full the typeface design, colour scheme and official slogan of our client's core brand, and its designated goods overlapped substantially with our client's core business categories. Following examination by the Intellectual Property Office of Viet Nam, the mark proceeded to publication. The statutory opposition period is three months from the publication date and cannot be extended.
Background investigations revealed that the Vietnamese applicant had filed more than ten trademark applications within a short period, all directly copying established commercial signs of well-known electronics and technology brands from multiple countries. These filings clearly exceeded its normal business capacity and lacked any genuine intention to use the marks, constituting systematic bad-faith trademark squatting and stockpiling on a bulk basis. After being retained by the client, our team worked with a local intellectual property agency in Vietnam to initiate the full trademark opposition and enforcement process within the statutory deadline.
(2) Representation Strategy
The case employs a three-tier framework of legal arguments, with “earlier priority as the core, bad-faith trademark squatting as reinforcement, and likelihood of confusion as support”, accompanied by a two-track strategy of advancing the proceedings and applying commercial pressure:
1. Core rights argument: Relying on the first-to-file principle under Vietnam's Law on Intellectual Property, argue that our client's Vietnamese trademark enjoys an earlier priority date, that the opposed mark is highly similar to the sign protected by our client's earlier rights, and that the designated goods are highly similar, such that registration should be refused in accordance with the law.
2. Arguments establishing bad faith: Rely on the series of facts showing that the applicant filed applications for numerous well-known brands belonging to others within a short period, exceeded its normal business capacity and lacked a genuine intention to use the marks. Invoke the relevant provisions on bad-faith registration in Vietnam's Law on Intellectual Property to demonstrate that its conduct is contrary to honest commercial practices and falls within the statutory grounds for refusal.
3. Supporting arguments on confusion and reputation: Submit evidence of our client's brand's more than ten years of worldwide use, global sales and promotional activities, local distribution channels in Vietnam and the foundation of its market recognition, demonstrating that the relevant public is likely to be confused or mistaken as to the source of the goods and strengthening the factual basis of the opposition.
4. Management of the entire procedure: Advance evidence collection and organisation, drafting and review of the bilingual notice of opposition, and filing through the official electronic portal in stages; simultaneously send a lawyer's letter to the trademark squatter to apply pressure through both tracks; preserve invalidation proceedings as a remedy in the event of an unfavourable opposition outcome, while monitoring the examination progress of our client's own trademark application.
(3) Results of Our Services
Completed a comprehensive review of earlier rights, analysed the legal effect of priority and how it applies, and established the core rights-based argument for the opposition
Completed a comprehensive investigation of the opposed applicant's trademark filing conduct, secured a chain of evidence of bad-faith bulk trademark squatting and stockpiling, and developed a dedicated framework of arguments on bad-faith registration
Developed a three-tier framework of arguments based on “priority + bad-faith registration + likelihood of confusion”, completed drafting of the statement of grounds of opposition, and completed legal compliance checks by both the Chinese and Vietnamese teams.
Delivered guidance for compiling evidence throughout the process and a plan for managing procedural milestones, supported by a strategy for applying pressure through a lawyer's letter and contingency plans for subsequent remedies
[Keywords] Vietnamese trademark opposition; Paris Convention priority; bad-faith trademark squatting; bulk trademark stockpiling