Whether use of a Chinese trademark having similar/identical meaning with a prior English mark constitutes a trademark infringement in Vietnam. Imagine you choose a Chinese character trademark for a new product line in Vietnam to avoid conflicts with existing marks. However, this Chinese mark has the exact same meaning as an English language trademark already protected in Vietnam. This increasingly common scenario poses a key question: Does this semantic similarity alone trigger trademark infringement in Vietnam? The article will provide analysis on this complex question, examining the scope of trademark protection under Vietnamese law, specifically Decree No. 65/2023/ND-CP, and assessing whether the “conceptual similarity” between a Chinese and English mark can indeed constitute infringement.
在越南，使用与在先的英文商标含义相似或相同的中文商标是否构成商标侵权呢？设想一下，你为越南的一个新产品线选择了一个汉字商标，以避免与现有商标产生冲突。然而，这个中文商标与一个在越南已受保护的英文商标含义完全相同。这种日益常见的情形引出了一个关键问题：仅这种语义上的相似性，在越南是否会引发商标侵权呢？ 本文将针对这一复杂问题展开分析，审视越南法律特别是第 65/2023/ND - CP号法令所规定的商标保护范围，并评估中文商标与英文商标之间的“概念相似性”是否确实能够构成侵权。
1.越南商标侵权的法律框架
In Vietnam, establishing trademark infringement necessitates meeting 02 key legal conditions. These conditions ensure that trademark protection is balanced and focused on preventing genuine consumer confusion.
在越南，认定商标侵权需要满足两个关键的法律条件。这些条件确保商标保护实现平衡，并侧重于防止真正的消费者混淆。
a) “Identical or Confusingly Similar” Marks: The first condition centers on the similarity between the marks themselves. A suspected sign is considered “identical” if it mirrors the registered trademark in structure and presentation, representing a direct replication. However, the concept of “confusingly similar” is broader and more complicated. Decree 65/2023/ND-CP explicitly defines confusing similarity as existing when signs share “identical or highly similar elements that are difficult to distinguish” across a range of factors. These factors are comprehensive and importantly include: structure, pronunciation, transliteration, meaning, presentation, or color (for visible signs), and melody or sound (for auditory/sound marks). Beyond mere similarity, the use of such a sign must also be “likely to cause confusion among consumers regarding the origin of the goods or services“. This “likelihood of confusion” is the ultimate test. This focuses on whether consumers might be misled about the source due to the mark’s similarity.
a) “相同或足以引起混淆的近似”商标：第一个条件聚焦于商标本身之间的相似性。如果一个涉嫌侵权的标识在结构和呈现方式上与注册商标完全一致，即被视为“相同”，这属于直接复制。然而，“足以引起混淆的近似”这一概念更为宽泛且复杂。第65/2023/ND - CP号法令明确规定，当标识在一系列因素方面存在“相同或高度相似且难以区分的要素”时，即构成足以引起混淆的近似。这些因素是全面的，并且主要包括：结构、发音、音译、含义、呈现方式或颜色（针对可视标识），以及旋律或声音（针对听觉/声音商标）。除了单纯的相似性之外，使用这样的标识还必须“有可能导致消费者对商品或服务的来源产生混淆”。这种“混淆的可能性”是最终的判定标准，重点在于消费者是否会因该商标的相似性而对其来源产生误解。
b) “Identical or Similar Goods/Services”: The second condition addresses the relationship between the goods or services associated with the marks. Infringement requires that the goods or services bearing the suspected sign are “identical or similar in nature, function, or purpose” to those protected under the registered trademark. This similarity can also be established if the goods/services share “the same distribution channels” or if there exists an “inherent relationship between them in terms of nature, function, or implementation method“. This condition ensures that trademark protection is not overly broad, focusing infringement assessments on related or competitive goods and services.
b）“相同或类似的商品/服务”：第二个条件涉及与商标相关联的商品或服务之间的关系。构成侵权的前提是，带有涉嫌侵权标识的商品或服务在“性质、功能或用途上与注册商标所保护的商品或服务“相同或类似”。如果这些商品/服务拥有“相同的分销渠道”，或者在“性质、功能或实施方式方面存在内在联系”，也可认定为具有相似性。这一条件确保商标保护范围不会过于宽泛，将侵权评估聚焦于相关或存在竞争关系的商品和服务上。
2.越南商标法中的“概念相似”概念
While Vietnamese trademark law, like many jurisdictions, traditionally emphasizes visual and phonetic similarity, the principle of “conceptual similarity” adds a critical layer of complexity. This concept recognizes that trademark infringement can occur even when marks are visually and aurally different, if they convey the same or highly similar meaning or overall commercial impression to consumers. In essence, conceptual similarity focuses on the semantic content of trademarks and how consumers perceive their underlying message.
与许多司法管辖区一样，越南商标法传统上注重视觉和听觉上的相似性，然而，“概念相似性”原则增加了关键的复杂层面。这一概念承认，即使各商标在视觉和听觉上有所不同，但如果它们向消费者传达出相同或高度相似的含义或整体商业印象，那么商标侵权仍可能发生。从本质上讲，“概念相似性”关注的是商标的语义内容，以及消费者如何理解其背后所传达的信息。
The relevance of conceptual similarity stems from how consumers interact with trademarks. Trademarks are not merely abstract symbols; they function as communicators of meaning, instantly conveying information about the origin, quality, and nature of goods or services. When two marks, even in different languages or scripts, evoke the same core meaning, they can create a similar mental association in the consumer’s mind. This shared meaning can lead consumers to mistakenly believe that goods or services offered under the later mark originate from the same source as, or are affiliated with, the earlier, conceptually similar trademark. Therefore, during the examination process, the IP Office of Vietnam has refused registration of the applied-for mark due to similarity in the trademark meaning.
“概念相似性”的重要性源于消费者与商标的互动方式。商标不仅仅是抽象的符号，它们还充当着意义的传达者，能够即刻传递有关商品或服务的来源、质量和性质的信息。当两个商标，即便使用不同的语言或文字体系，却唤起相同的核心含义时，它们能在消费者心中产生类似的心理联想。这种共通的含义可能会导致消费者误以为，在后商标所标识的商品或服务，与在先的、在概念上相似的商标来自同一来源，或者两者之间存在关联。因此，在审查过程中，越南知识产权局曾因商标含义相似而驳回过商标申请。
An assessment of the likelihood of confusion based on similarity in trademark meaning indicates that, if a later sign is considered similar in meaning to a previously registered trademark to the extent that it may lead consumers to believe they share the same origin, the later mark may indeed constitute an infringement of the earlier mark’s rights. Hence, the conceptual similarity is only legally important if it’s strong enough to actually confuse consumers. The confusion must be about whether the goods or services offered under the new trademark come from the same source as the goods or services offered under the older, registered trademark. More importantly, this confusion must be in relation to products or services that are the same or very similar. Therefore, Vietnamese trademark law doesn’t just protect the look and sound of a trademark. It also protects the meaning or concept that the trademark represents in the minds of consumers.
基于商标含义相似性对混淆可能性的评估表明，如果一个在后标识在含义上与在先已注册商标相似到可能会使消费者认为它们来源相同的程度，那么该在后商标确实可能构成对在先商标权利的侵犯。因此，只有当概念相似性足够强烈，足以真正使消费者产生混淆时，它才具有法律意义。这种混淆必须是关于使用新商标的商品或服务与使用在先已注册的商标的商品或服务是否来自同一来源。更重要的是，这种混淆必须与相同或非常相似的商品或服务相关。所以，越南商标法不仅保护商标的外观和读音，还保护商标在消费者心中所代表的含义或概念。
From the trademark owner’s perspective, legal arguments concerning the similarity in trademark meaning that may cause consumer confusion about the commercial origin of the goods can be based on the following key viewpoints:
从商标所有者的角度来看，关于商标含义相似可能导致消费者对商品商业来源产生混淆的法律论据，可以基于以下几个关键观点：
-
Consumer understanding of Chinese in Vietnam: The widespread understanding of Chinese characters in Vietnam, especially in commercial contexts, significantly increase potential confusion based on meaning. Consumers are likely to decode the Chinese mark and connect it to the English mark with the same meaning.
a) 越南消费者对中文的理解：在越南，尤其是在商业环境中，消费者对汉字的广泛理解，极大地增加了基于含义产生混淆的可能性。消费者很可能会解读中文商标，并将其与具有相同含义的英文商标联系起来。
-
Likelihood of confusion based on meaning: If the Chinese mark’s meaning directly mirrors the English mark’s meaning for similar goods, it becomes highly plausible that consumers will be confused about the origin of the goods, satisfying a key requirement for infringement under Article 77.3.
b）基于含义的混淆可能性：如果中文商标在类似商品上的含义与英文商标的含义完全一致，那么消费者极有可能对商品的来源产生混淆，这就满足了第77.3条中关于构成侵权的一个关键要件。
-
Trading on goodwill and reputation: Using a Chinese mark that carries the same meaning as a well-established English mark could be interpreted as an attempt to unfairly capitalize on the goodwill and reputation associated with the prior mark, taking advantage of its semantic space in the consumer’s mind.
c)利用商誉和声誉谋利：使用与一个已享有盛誉的英文商标具有相同含义的中文商标，可能会被视为试图不正当地利用与在先商标相关的商誉和声誉，借助该在先商标在消费者心目中所占据的语义空间来谋取利益。
-
Scope of trademark Ppotection: Trademark protection should extend to the essential meaning and commercial impression of a mark, regardless of its linguistic expression. Limiting protection solely to visual and phonetic aspects would undermine the very purpose of trademarks as source identifiers based on consumer perception of meaning.
d) 商标保护范围：商标保护应当涵盖商标的核心含义和商业印象，而不应受其语言表达形式的限制。仅仅将保护范围局限于视觉和语音方面，将会削弱商标作为基于消费者对其含义认知的来源识别标志这一根本作用。
3.将“概念相似性”适用于中英文商标的情形
If a Chinese-language trademark has a similar or identical meaning to an English-language trademark that has been previously protected in Vietnam, does this similarity in meaning alone create a risk of infringement?
如果一个中文商标与一个先前已在越南获得保护的英文商标含义相似或相同，仅凭这一含义上的相似性是否会带来侵权风险呢？
The answer, based on the principles discussed above, leans toward the likelihood of infringement, although not in all cases. An important factor in the Vietnamese context is the relatively high level of Chinese language recognition among the public, especially in commercial context. A notable segment of Vietnamese consumers possesses at least a basic understanding of Chinese characters, often encountered in commerce and everyday life. Consequently, consumers encountering a Chinese character mark in Vietnam are more likely to decipher its meaning. If this meaning directly corresponds to the meaning of a prior English mark associated with similar goods, the potential for consumer confusion about the origin of these goods becomes tangible and substantial.
根据上述讨论的原则，答案倾向于存在侵权的可能性，尽管并非在所有情况下都会构成侵权。在越南的环境中，一个重要因素是公众，尤其是在商业领域中，对中文的识别能力相对较高。相当一部分越南消费者至少具备对汉字的基本理解能力，因为他们在商业活动和日常生活中经常会接触到汉字。因此，在越南遇到中文商标的消费者更有可能解读其含义。如果该含义与在先的、与类似商品相关的英文商标的含义直接对应，那么消费者对这些商品来源产生混淆的可能性就会变得切实且很大。
Furthermore, it’s important to acknowledge that although Chinese character marks might face challenges in registration in Vietnam due to inherent indistinctiveness, the “use” of such marks in the marketplace presents a different legal issue. Even if a mark might be deemed “unregistrable“, its use can still infringe upon the rights of a prior, conceptually similar trademark if it is likely to cause confusion.
此外，必须认识到，尽管汉字商标在越南可能因其固有的缺乏显著性而在注册方面面临挑战，但此类商标在市场上的“使用”则构成了一个不同的法律问题。即使某个商标可能被认定为“不可注册”，但如果其使用有可能造成混淆，那么仍然可能侵犯在先的、在概念上相似的商标的权利。
Vietnamese law provides regulations on the similarity in meaning between trademarks and prohibits the registration and use of trademarks with identical meanings. However, in practice—particularly in assessing the semantic similarity between Chinese-language trademarks and trademarks in other languages that are protected in Vietnam—this remains an area that has not been comprehensively tested or clearly defined.
越南法律对商标之间在含义上的相似性作出了规定，并禁止注册和使用含义相同的商标。然而，在实践中，尤其是在评估中文商标与在越南受保护的其他语言商标之间的语义相似性方面，这仍是一个尚未得到全面检验且未被明确界定的领域。
4.超越侵权范畴：不正当竞争与商标淡化
Even if the Vietnamese authorities determine that the use of a Chinese-language trademark with a similar meaning does not constitute direct trademark infringement under Article 77.3, the owner of the registered English-language trademark may still pursue other legal remedies. The use of a Chinese-language trademark bearing the same meaning as a well-known English or Vietnamese brand may be considered an act of unfair competition. This legal concept is broader than traditional trademark infringement, focusing on unfair competitive practices and may include the unauthorized appropriation of a competitor’s brand value by imitating its meaning (through semantic mimicry).
即使越南主管部门认定，使用含义相似的中文商标不构成第77.3条规定下的直接商标侵权，已注册英文商标的所有者仍可寻求其他法律救济。使用与知名英文或越南品牌含义相同的中文商标，可能会被视为不正当竞争行为。这一法律概念比传统的商标侵权更为宽泛，它侧重于不正当的竞争行为，其中可能包括通过模仿含义（即语义模仿）的方式，未经授权地占用竞争对手的品牌价值。
Additionally, another legal aspect to consider is the concept of trademark dilution, particularly when the previously registered English-language trademark is recognized as “well-known”. Trademark dilution refers to the weakening of the inherent distinctiveness of a well-known mark, even in the absence of direct consumer confusion regarding the origin of the goods or services. The use of a Chinese-language trademark with an identical meaning—especially across a wide range of unrelated or dissimilar goods—may dilute the uniqueness and brand strength of the long-established English-language mark, even if consumers are not immediately confused about the source.
此外，另一个需要考虑的法律层面是商标淡化的概念，尤其是当在先注册的英文商标被认定为“驰名商标”时。商标淡化是指即使不存在消费者对商品或服务来源的直接混淆，驰名商标的固有显著性也会被削弱。使用一个含义相同的中文商标，尤其是在一系列广泛不相关或不同类的商品上使用时，即便不会立即导致消费者对商品来源产生混淆，也可能会削弱这一长期树立起来的英文商标的独特性和品牌影响力。
5.结语
In conclusion, the use of a Chinese trademark having similar or identical meaning with a prior English mark protected in Vietnam presents a genuine and significant risk of trademark infringement. While Vietnamese trademark law, particularly Decree No. 65/2023/ND-CP, explicitly includes “meaning” as a factor in assessing confusing similarity, the practical application of this principle in cases relying solely on conceptual equivalence, especially between Chinese and English marks, remains an evolving area.
综上所述，在越南使用与在先受保护的英文商标含义相似或相同的中文商标，确实存在真实且重大的商标侵权风险。尽管越南商标法，特别是第65/2023/ND-CP号法令，明确将“含义”列为评估混淆性近似的一个因素，但这一原则在仅基于概念等同（尤其是中英文商标之间）的案件中的实际应用，仍是一个不断发展变化的领域。
The fact that many Vietnamese consumers, particularly in the business context, understand the meaning of Chinese words – combined with the recognition of semantic similarity under Vietnamese law – indicates that enforcement authorities and courts may find infringement in such cases, especially where a likelihood of consumer confusion regarding the commercial origin of the goods or services can be clearly demonstrated. Furthermore, even if direct trademark infringement cannot be established, businesses using such trademarks may still face legal claims related to unfair competition or trademark dilution.
许多越南消费者，尤其是在商业领域中，能够理解中文词汇的含义，再加上越南法律对语义相似性的认可，这一事实表明，执法机构和法院可能会认定此类案件构成侵权，特别是在能够清楚证明消费者对商品或服务的商业来源存在混淆可能性的情况下。此外，即使无法认定构成直接的商标侵权，使用此类商标的企业仍可能面临与不正当竞争或商标淡化相关的法律诉求。