In brief
Vietnam has introduced two important instruments to implement the 2025 Intellectual Property (IP) Law: Decree No. 100/2026/ND-CP ("Decree 100"), which amends Decree No. 65/2023/ND-CP, and Circular 10/2026/TT-BKHCN ("Circular 10"), which provides further guidance on the IP Law and Decree 65.
Together, these measures provide long-awaited clarity on several key aspects of trademark practice in Vietnam, including the protection of AI-generated marks, examination standards for sound marks, the fast-track examination process, the threshold for genuine use, and the assessment of bad-faith filings. The changes are significant for both domestic and international brand owners, as they point to a more detailed, evidence-driven and commercially focused approach to trademark examination and enforcement.
Key takeaways
- AI-generated trademarks are expressly eligible for protection, provided the usual requirements for trademark protection are met.
- Sound mark applications will now be examined under clearer formal and substantive standards, which should help move pending applications forward.
- Fast-track examination has been introduced for limited circumstances, mainly where broader regulatory or strategic technology considerations apply.
- The bar for proving genuine trademark use is now higher, with clearer guidance on what will not qualify as genuine use.
- Bad-faith filing standards have been strengthened, giving rights holders a more practical basis to oppose or invalidate abusive applications.
In more detail
1. AI-generated trademarks are expressly eligible for protection
One of the clearest updates is confirmation that trademarks created with the assistance of artificial intelligence may qualify for protection in Vietnam, provided that they meet the general requirements for trademark protection.
Unlike inventions, industrial designs and integrated circuit layout designs, trademarks are not subject to a requirement that a human must have made a substantial creative contribution to the sign. The new rules therefore remove a key area of uncertainty for businesses using AI tools in brand development.
For brand owners, this brings Vietnam's position into closer alignment with the commercial reality of modern brand creation, where AI is increasingly used as part of the creative process.
2. Sound mark examination standards are now more clearly defined
The new regulations also provide more detailed guidance on the formal requirements for sound mark applications. This includes stricter standards for mark descriptions and for the presentation of five-line musical notation.
Just as importantly, the rules identify categories of sound that are likely to be considered non-distinctive. These include sounds that are overly common, excessively long or complex, or too short, such as sounds consisting of only one or two notes. Where a sound mark includes lyrics, the lyrics will be examined in the same way as a word mark.
These changes are particularly relevant because they should help unlock the examination of sound mark applications filed since 2023, many of which have remained pending in the absence of detailed guidance.
3. Fast-track examination is introduced, but its availability is limited
The new rules also formalize a fast-track examination mechanism for trademark applications. Although welcome in principle, the mechanism is available only in specific circumstances. Fast-track examination may be requested where:
- The mark is used for goods manufactured under a patented invention included in the list of strategic technologies and strategic technology products under the law on high technology, or for inventions researched and deployed in emergency situations, such as national security, defense, natural disasters or epidemics
- The trademark registration certificate is a required document or legal condition for the applicant to complete other procedures under applicable laws
- The mechanism currently applies only to national applications. It is not available for collective marks, certification marks, three-dimensional marks or sound marks.
A request for fast-track examination must be submitted at the time of filing the trademark application. If accepted, the request will be published together with the application, and the application will be examined within three months from the publication date.
Although narrow, this mechanism may still be commercially valuable in highly regulated sectors or where trademark registration is tied to time-sensitive licensing, approval or market-entry requirements.
4. Circular 10 raises the bar for proving genuine use
One of the most significant practical developments is the long-awaited clarification of what constitutes genuine trademark use for the purpose of maintaining a registration in Vietnam.
Circular 10 confirms that a trademark will not be considered used where the alleged use is merely token or formalistic and does not amount to genuine commercial exploitation of the mark in relation to the relevant goods or services.
To illustrate this principle, the Circular identifies several forms of activity that will not qualify as genuine use and therefore cannot be relied on to defend against a non-use cancellation action. These include:
- Use limited to preparatory or experimental activities
- Use confined to internal operations
- Use that is not connected with the actual offering of the relevant goods or services on the market
This guidance materially increases the evidentiary burden on trademark owners. In practical terms, businesses should review how they document use in Vietnam and ensure that their evidence clearly shows real commercial activity connected to the relevant goods or services.
5. New bad-faith criteria strengthen the position of rights holders
Circular 10 provides more concrete criteria for invalidating trademark registrations filed in bad faith.
One key scenario is where an applicant files a large number of marks that are identical or confusingly similar to marks already used by others in Vietnam for the same or similar goods or services, in circumstances suggesting trademark stockpiling rather than legitimate brand development. The provision also looks at whether the volume of filings goes beyond the applicant's normal business capacity and whether there is any credible evidence of a genuine intention to use the marks in commercial activities.
Importantly, the better reading of the new regulation is not that all earlier marks owned by other parties must be used in Vietnam, but rather that each earlier mark relied on under this ground must itself be a mark that is being used in Vietnam.
A second scenario concerns filings intended to take unfair advantage of another party's commercial reputation. This applies where, at the filing date, the applied-for mark is identical or confusingly similar either to a sign already recognized by relevant consumers in Vietnam as indicating another party's commercial source, or to a mark that is well known in other countries, and the filing is made to exploit goodwill, force a sale, licence or assignment, block market entry, restrict competition, or otherwise depart from honest commercial practices.
For brand owners, the practical significance is clear: the new guidance gives a stronger basis to challenge trademark squatting and other bad-faith filings, including filings aimed at warehousing marks, leveraging another party's reputation, or creating pressure for a commercial settlement. It also signals that the authorities will look beyond formal filing status and focus more closely on commercial reality, the applicant's filing pattern and actual business purposes.
Conclusion
Vietnam's latest IP regulations do more than refine procedure. They signal a broader shift toward a more modern and commercially grounded trademark regime. By clarifying the treatment of AI-assisted marks, sound marks, genuine use and bad-faith filings, the new rules should improve legal certainty while giving examiners and rights holders clearer tools to navigate brand protection and enforcement.
For businesses operating in Vietnam or planning to enter the market, these developments warrant close attention. The direction of travel is clear: stronger protection is available, but it will increasingly depend on disciplined filing strategies, credible evidence of use and early action against abusive filings.
* * * * *
Hoa Tran, Partner, Chi Dung Vo and Tien Dat Nguyen, Senior Associates, and Thi Tuyet Nhung Nguyen and Thi Thanh Thuy Ninh, Associates, have co-authored this legal update.
© 2026 BMVN International LLC. All rights reserved. BMVN International LLC is in strategic alliance with Baker & McKenzie (Vietnam) Ltd., a member firm of Baker & McKenzie International, a global law firm with member law firms around the world. In accordance with the common terminology used in professional service organizations, reference to a “partner” means a person who is a partner, or equivalent, in such a law firm. Similarly, reference to an “office” means an office of any such law firm. This may qualify as “Attorney Advertising” requiring notice in some jurisdictions. Prior results do not guarantee a similar outcome.