29/03/2023 10:38

Collection of judgments on disputes over industrial trademark, design in Vietnam

Collection of judgments on disputes over industrial trademark, design in Vietnam

I would like to have some judgments on disputes over industrial trademark, design in Vietnam. Thanks! _ Nhung Huyen (Hue, Vietnam)

Hello, Lawnet would like to send you some judgments on the disputes over industrial trademark, design in Vietnam:

1. Judgment on intellectual property rights dispute No. 01/2019/KDTM-PT

- Level of trial: Appellate.

- Judicial body: High People's Court in Ho Chi Minh City.

- Quoted content: "Company D was granted a certificate of trademark registration "Asano, picture" No. 107919 dated August 25, 2008 for the goods of Group 07: Washing machines, electric blenders for household use, and electric juicers for household use; Group 09: televisions, DVD players, speakers, and amplifiers; Group 11: refrigerators, air conditioners, rice cookers, microwave ovens, ovens, gas stoves, electric fans, and electric water heaters. In 2015, Company D discovered on the market that A Vietnam Electronics Joint Stock Company used the ASANZO trademark to attach the goods and services of Company A Vietnam.
such as televisions, air conditioners, blenders, and many other household goods with designs and brands similar to trademarks that Company D has registered for protection."

- Result of settlement: Accepting part of the claim of the plaintiff, forcing Company A Vietnam to:

+ Stop the infringing act, specifically, terminate the use of the trademark "Asanzo, picture" pasted on the website interface with the address: http://asanzo.com.vn; signs, trucks, and products of groups 7, 9, 11 circulating on the market;

+ Remove the mark "Asanzo, picture" that has been affixed to all products of groups 7, 9, 11 circulating in the territory of Vietnam;

2. Judgment on intellectual property rights dispute No. 01/2018/KDTM-ST

- Level of trial: First instance.

- Judicial body: People's Court of Hung Yen province.

- Quoted content: "Thus, the defendant's electric motorcycle design is not significantly different from the plaintiff's protected vehicle design in most general details. Especially besides the negligible difference in the traditional characteristics of the two-wheeler, bib, and saddle manufacturing industries, the defendant's vehicle design is similar to the car cover and saddle in the design of the vehicle being protected by the plaintiff. The defendant's design of the vehicle that is not significantly different from recognizable, memorable, and highly distinguishable details in the Plaintiff's design has shown the defendant's intention in copying; using both traditional and new features in the claimant's protected industrial design."

- Result of settlement: Forcing E Vietnam Joint Stock Company to stop using the MOTORCYCLE industrial design. The trademarks "P2", V", "P and picture" of Company P are protected by Patent No. 20652. Forcing E Vietnam Joint Stock Company to pay compensation to Company P Money Company P hires a lawyer is 200,000,000 VND...

3. Judgment 60/2020/KDTM-PT dated September 10, 2020 on intellectual property rights disputes

- Level of trial: Appellate.

- Judicial body: High People's Court in Ho Chi Minh City.

- Quoted content: " About the cost of Company T hiring a lawyer: The defendant disagreed because when the defendant imported the goods, he did not receive a notice letter, or a warning letter about counterfeit goods from the plaintiff. Therefore, the defendant was completely unaware of his violation until the administrative sanctioning decision of the Ho Chi Minh City Market Management Sub-Department. Furthermore, the defendant's representative found that the plaintiff's attorney's fees were unreasonable, and the plaintiff's lawyer could only perform the following tasks:consulting, legal aid, drafting and preparing documents, and participating in court proceedings. Therefore, the lawyer's fee is 20,000,000 to be consistent with reality and in accordance with the provisions of law."

- Result of settlement: P Pharmaceutical Co., Ltd. must stop infringing on intellectual property rights to the industrial design "Plastic box"; stop counterfeiting the AIKIDO trademark of T Pharmaceutical Co., Ltd. Specifically, immediately stop the import, trading, circulation, advertising, and offering for sale of cold compresses branded "Aikido" throughout the territory of Vietnam...

4. Judgment on intellectual property rights dispute No. 17/2019/KDTM-ST

- Level of trial: First instance.

- Judicial body: Hanoi People's Court.

- Quoted content: "The use of the element/sign "Dong T" after the Respondent changed its business registration to Asea Dong T Company without the consent of the plaintiff is an illegal act, directly infringing the industrial property rights to the trade name and trademark Dong T, which are being protected by the State for the Plaintiff."

- Result of settlement: Forcing the defendant to stop the act of infringing on trademark Dong T; forcing ASEA Food Flour Joint Stock Company D, headquartered at: V village, T commune, Th district, Hanoi city, to have a business location at: hamlet 1, commune D, Th district, Hanoi city, stop infringing the rights to the trade name Dong T and have to carry out procedures to change the business name at the Business Registration Office - Hanoi Department of Planning and Investment by removing the sign of the name "DONG T" from its business name, transaction name, initials...

5. Judgment on intellectual property rights disputes (designs are not significantly different) No. 36/2018/KDTM-ST

- Level of trial: First instance.

- Judicial body: Hanoi People's Court.

- Quoted content: " Overall, there is no significant difference in the design of the Respondent's electric vehicle, which is considered to be a copy of the protected design in Title 20652; with a raised front end, a round headlight protruding forward, a flat bib and evenly extended to the sides, wide and low legroom, and a large and tapering rear end. Not only the shape, but the layout and size ratio between the parts of the two styles are similar. No significant overall difference is evident in the drawings and photographs."

- Result of settlement: Forcing Technology Development Support Joint Stock Company D to terminate the illegal use of the industrial design "MOTORCYCLE" which is protected under Patent No. 20652 of P&C S.p.A., and other designs not significantly different from the "MOTORCYCLE" design protected by Patent No. 20652...

6. Judgment on intellectual property rights dispute No. 12/2022/KDTM-PT

- Level of trial: Appellate.

- Judicial body: High People's Court in Ho Chi Minh City.

- Quoted content: "According to the provisions of Clause 5, Article 124 of the Intellectual Property Law on acts of using trademarks, using a trade name is not an act of using a mark. Therefore, the fact that Company M believes that Company F's use of a trade name is an infringement of the rights to the mark specified in Article 129 of the Intellectual Property Law to sue to force Company F to change its trade name to ensure that it is not confusingly similar to a protected trademark of Company M is groundless, so it is not accepted by the first-instance court as having a basis and being in accordance with law."

- Result of settlement: Not accepting the entire claim of the plaintiff - Company M, against the defendant - Company F.

Nguyen Thi Sang
199


Please Login to be able to download
Login
Register

  • Address: 17 Nguyen Gia Thieu, Vo Thi Sau Ward, District 3, Ho Chi Minh City
    Phone: (028) 7302 2286 (6 lines)
    E-mail: info@lawnet.vn
Parent company: THU VIEN PHAP LUAT Ltd
Editorial Director: Mr. Bui Tuong Vu - Tel. (028) 7302 2286
P.702A , Centre Point, 106 Nguyen Van Troi, Ward 8, Phu Nhuan District, HCM City;