Identical Filing Dates, Identical Marks: Vietnam’s Resolution Mechanism and How Businesses Should Respond?

Legal consequence – an administrative stalemate. No application can proceed to grant unless the parties submit a written agreement on how the conflict will be resolved. IPVN will permit only one application to move forward to grant.

Accordingly, trademark owners typically choose one of two pathways:

• (A) Single owner. The parties execute an agreement under which one party continues with the application; the other withdraws its application or assigns it to the first party. This is the simpler, faster approach and is often preferred where one party has a clearer commercial interest.
• (B) Co-ownership of a single mark. If both parties have legitimate reasons to retain rights, they may agree to co-own a single, consolidated application. Both parties are named on one application, and the other application is withdrawn. This enables joint exploitation of the mark but requires long-term cooperation and a clear allocation of rights and obligations.

Whichever option is chosen, the parties must promptly execute a formal written agreement and notify IPVN. If no agreement is filed within the prescribed period, all related applications will be refused for failure to resolve the conflict.

Why is this mechanism sound?

The “mutual citation–party agreement–single registrable application” approach is not a stop-gap technical fix; it reflects a careful balance between legal principles and the practical administration of a registration system:

• Strict adherence to the objectivity of the first-to-file rule. The IP Office does not consider “use merits” or a mark’s commercial exploitation history absent a clear statutory basis for priority. This ensures procedural fairness in absolute terms.
• Practicality in administration and dispute prevention. Avoiding parallel grants of duplicative rights for the same goods/services minimizes the risk of post-registration disputes and, at the same time, incentivizes the parties to engage in dialogue and proactively resolve their conflict.

In other words, the mechanism both safeguards the transparency and objectivity of the legal framework and creates a necessary “space” for the parties to demonstrate good faith and brand strategy. Rather than producing a winner-take-all outcome, it affords both sides an opportunity to negotiate toward a mutually acceptable solution aligned with their business interests.

Recommendations for Trademark Owners

To handle the above scenario effectively, trademark owners should proactively take the following steps:

• Engage promptly with the counterparty: Upon receiving an examination notice citing the other application, immediately contact the other applicant. Early negotiations increase the likelihood of agreeing on a path forward—withdrawal, assignment, or co-ownership. Delay may result in both parties losing rights.
• Standardize the legal paperwork: Prepare all necessary instruments: a designation or co-ownership agreement, a withdrawal letter, an assignment agreement (if applicable), and an official communication to the Intellectual Property Office of Vietnam (IPVN) confirming the parties’ agreement.
• Draft operational clauses (for co-ownership): If co-ownership is chosen, clearly define quality control, scope of use, decision-making mechanisms, and procedures for resolving disagreements. This helps prevent consumer confusion and internal conflicts.
• Monitor all deadlines: Even while negotiating, closely track the examination timelines for both files (response deadlines, publication dates, third-party opposition windows, etc.). Proactive monitoring ensures no critical deadline is missed and avoids adverse procedural outcomes.
• Consider long-term strategy: In most cases, having a single owner facilitates management, commercialization, and enforcement (e.g., simplifying licensing, enforcement actions, or future transfers). While co-ownership can be a flexible interim solution, it carries operational risks over time. Owners should weigh the pros and cons carefully and prioritize the option that best serves their long-term brand strategy.