越南的汉字商标：与其他商标含义相似/ 相同是否构成侵权
在越南，使用与在先英文商标含义上相同或相似的中文商标，是否构成商标侵权？ 设想一下：为了避免与现有商标发生冲突，你为在越南推出的一个新产品系列选择了一个汉字商标。然而，该中文商标与已在越南受到保护的英文商标含义完全相同。这种越来越普遍的情形引发了一个关键问题：仅仅是语义上存在相同或相似，是否就足以构成在越南的商标侵权？
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?
KENFOX IP & Law Office，作为越南最专业的领先知识产权律所之一，该所对这一复杂问题进行了分析，研究了越南法律，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”是否确实可能构成侵权。
KENFOX IP & Law Office, one of the most prossional leading IP firms in Vietnam, 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.
越南商标侵权的法律框架 –Legal Framework for Trademark Infringement in Vietnam
在越南，认定商标侵权需满足两个关键法律条件。这些条件旨在确保商标保护具有平衡性，并侧重于防止真正的消费者混淆。
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.
a) “相同或足以引起混淆”的商标：第一个条件的核心是商标本身的相似性。如果一个可疑标志在构造和表现形式上与注册商标完全一致，属于直接复制，则被视为“相同”。然而，“混淆性近似”这一概念则更为广泛且复杂。第65/2023/ND-CP号法令明确将混淆性近似定义为：当标志在多个方面具有“相同或高度相似且难以区分的要素”时，即构成混淆性相似。 这些因素是综合性的，具体包括：构造、发音、音译、含义、表现形式或颜色（适用于可视标志），以及旋律或声音（适用于听觉/声音商标）。然而，仅有相似性还不足以构成侵权。使用该标志还必须“可能导致消费者对商品或服务来源产生混淆”。这一“混淆可能性”才是最终的判断标准，其重点是消费者是否可能因商标的相似性而对商品或服务的来源产生误认。
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.
b) “相同或类似的商品/服务”：第二个条件涉及与商标相关的商品或服务之间的关系。构成侵权要求带有可疑标志的商品或服务与受注册商标保护的商品或服务在性质、功能或用途上 “相同或类似”。 如果商品/服务共享 “相同的分销渠道 “或存在 “性质、功能或实施方法上的内在联系”，这种相似性也可以成立。该条件确保商标保护范围不会过于宽泛，从而将侵权评估重点放在相关或竞争性商品和服务上。
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.
越南商标法中的“概念相似性”概念 – The Concept of “Conceptual Similarity” in Vietnamese Trademark Law
虽然越南商标法与许多其他司法管辖区一样，传统上强调视觉和听觉上的相似性，但“概念相似”原则为商标侵权的判断增加了关键的复杂性。这一概念认为，即便商标在视觉和听觉上存在差异，只要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，也可能构成侵权。从本质上讲，“概念相似”关注的是商标的语义内容以及消费者对其所传达的潜在信息的认知。
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.
“概念相似”的相关性源于消费者与商标之间的互动方式。商标不仅仅是抽象的符号，它们还承担着传递含义的功能，能够即时传达有关商品或服务的来源、质量和性质等信息。当两个商标即便使用不同语言或文字体系，但传达出相同的核心含义时，可能在消费者心中形成类似的心理联想。这种共同的含义会使消费者误认为，在后商标所提供的商品或服务与在先的概念近似商标来源相同或有关联。。正因如此，在审查过程中，越南知识产权局以商标含义近似为由驳回了申请商标的注册。
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.
根据商标含义近似性对混淆可能性的评估表明，如果在后标识被认为与在先注册商标含义近似，以至于可能导致消费者认为两者具有相同来源，则在后标识可能确实构成对在先标识权利的侵犯。因此，只有当概念上的近似足以使消费者产生混淆时，才具有法律意义。这种混淆必须是关于新商标下提供的商品或服务是否与旧注册商标下提供的商品或服务来源相同。更重要的是，这种混淆必须发生在相同或高度类似的商品或服务之间。因此，越南商标法的保护不仅仅限于商标的外观和声音，也同样保护商标在消费者心中所代表的含义或概念。
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.
从商标所有人的角度来看，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主张，可以基于以下几个主要观点：
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:
- 越南消费者对中文的理解：在越南，尤其是在商业语境中，消费者对汉字的广泛理解，显著增加了基于含义产生混淆的可能性。消费者很可能会解读该中文商标，并将其与具有相同含义的英文商标联系起来。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.
- 基于含义的混淆可能性：如果中文商标的含义与英文商标在类似商品上的含义完全对应，那么消费者极有可能对商品的来源产生混淆，从而满足第77.3条中关于商标侵权的一个关键构成要件。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.
- 利用商誉与声誉牟利：使用与知名英文商标具有相同含义的中文商标，可能被视为试图不正当地利用在先商标所积累的商誉与声誉，借助其在消费者心中所占据的语义空间谋取不正当利益。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.
- 商标保护范围：商标保护应当延伸至商标的核心含义和商业印象，而不应仅限于其语言表达形式。如果将保护范围局限于视觉和听觉层面，将削弱商标作为基于消费者对含义认知而识别商品或服务来源的基本功能。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.
将“概念相似性”适用于中英文商标的情形 – Applying Conceptual Similarity to the Chinese-English Trademark Scenario
如果一个中文商标在含义上与已在越南获得保护的英文商标相同或相似，仅凭这一含义上的相似是否就足以构成侵权风险？
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?
根据上述原则，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。在越南的语境中，公众对中文的认知度相对较高，尤其是在商业环境中。。越南有相当一部分消费者具备基本的汉字理解能力，因为他们在商业活动和日常生活中经常接触到汉字。因此，当消费者在越南遇到一个汉字商标时，更有可能对其含义进行解读。如果该含义与在先英文商标在类似商品上的含义直接对应，那么消费者对这些商品来源产生混淆的风险就会变得具体且显著。
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.
此外，需要指出的是，尽管汉字商标在越南因其固有的不显著性可能面临注册障碍，但在市场上 “使用 “此类商标却会带来不同的法律问题。即使某个商标可能被认定为“不可注册”，只要其使用具有引起混淆的可能性，依然可能侵犯在先概念相似商标的权利。
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.
越南法律对商标含义上的相似作出了规定，并禁止注册和使用具有相同含义的商标。然而，在实践中，尤其是在评估中文商标与已在越南受保护的其他语言商标之间的语义相似性方面，这一领域尚未经过全面检验，也缺乏明确界定。
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.
超越侵权范畴：不正当竞争与商标淡化 – Beyond Infringement: Unfair Competition and Trademark Dilution
即使越南有关部门认定，使用与英文商标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，英文商标的注册权利人仍可寻求其他法律救济。若使用与知名英文或越南品牌具有相同含义的中文商标，该行为可能被视为不正当竞争行为。这一法律概念比传统意义上的商标侵权更为宽泛，其关注的是不正当的竞争行为，其中可能包括通过语义模仿方式擅自攫取竞争对手品牌价值的行为。
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).
此外，另一个需要考虑的法律层面是**商标淡化（Trademark Dilution）的概念，特别是当在先注册的英文商标已被认定为“驰名商标”**时。商标淡化是指驰名商标固有的显著性被削弱，即使消费者没有对商品或服务的来源产生直接混淆。使用一个具有相同含义的中文商标，尤其是在广泛不相关或不相似的商品类别上使用，可能会淡化长期使用的英文商标的独特性和品牌强度，即使消费者不会立即对其来源产生混淆。
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.
结语 – Final thoughts
综上所述，在越南使用与在先受保护英文商标含义相同或相似的中文商标，确实存在商标侵权的重大风险。尽管越南商标法，特别是第65/2023/ND-CP号法令，明确将“含义”作为评估混淆性相似的重要因素，但在实际操作中，仅依据概念上的等同关系，特别是在中文与英文商标之间的比对，仍存在不少需要进一步明确的问题。
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.
事实上，许多越南消费者，尤其是在商业领域，都能够理解中文词语的含义，再加上越南法律对语义相似性的认可，这表明在此类案件中，执法机构和法院可能会认定存在侵权行为，特别是在能够明确证明相关公众对商品或服务的商业来源产生混淆可能性的情况下。此外，即使无法直接认定构成商标侵权，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主张。因此，即使您仅打算在越南使用中文商标（而非注册），通过越南知识产权局审查员或越南知识产权研究院（VIPRI）进行详尽的商标检索，仍至关重要，以尽量降低潜在的商标侵权风险和法律主张，避免陷入冗长且代价高昂的商标侵权纠纷。
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.
QUAN, Nguyen Vu | Partner, IP Attorney