“L@TTITUDE” vs. “LATTITUDE”: How KENFOX Reversed a Refusal & Secured Protection in Vietnam?

For many international brand owners, receiving a provisional refusal from the Intellectual Property Office of Vietnam (IP Vietnam) can feel like a dead end. Vietnam is one of ASEAN’s fastest-growing markets – but also one of its most rigorous trademark examination systems, where non-traditional marks face heightened examination, prior cited marks may block registration even with market differences, examiner discretion remains conservative compared to other Madrid members, consent letters are not automatically accepted, stylized, digital-era brand identities (e.g., symbols such as “@”) are often misunderstood under traditional distinctiveness rules

A refusal in Vietnam is not merely an administrative hurdle – it can disrupt brand expansion strategy, delay market entry, and weaken regional trademark portfolios. Yet, refusals do not always mean defeat.

With the right legal strategy, evidence, and procedural advocacy, even marks initially rejected for similarity or non-distinctiveness can overcome objections and secure full protection. The following case – involving the stylized mark “L@TTITUDE” – illustrates how KENFOX successfully reversed a refusal decision and converted a high-risk filing into a registered right, proving that strategic action, not surrender, determines the outcome in Vietnam’s trademark landscape.

1. Case Snapshot

Hochiki Corporation filed the trademark “” (“L@TITUDE”) under the Madrid System (International Registration No. 1215932), designating protection in Vietnam for goods and services in Classes 09, 35, 37, and 42. However, the Intellectual Property Office of Vietnam (IP Vietnam) issued Provisional Refusal No. 2014/36 LMT11, invoking Article 74.2(e) of the Vietnamese IP Law to reject protection for Class 42. The refusal was based on the perceived likelihood of confusion with the earlier registered mark “LATITUDE” (Registration No. 201427).

In most cases, such a refusal would signal the end of the road for applicants seeking protection in Vietnam – a jurisdiction known for its rigorous examination standards and cautious stance on stylized trademarks.

2. Why This Case Was Legally Complex?

Visual + phonetic similarity between “L@ttitude” and “LATITUDE”
Overlapping Class 09 goods could trigger automatic refusal
Vietnam examiners rarely accept non-traditional stylization (e.g., @ replacing a letter)
High bar for proving no likelihood of confusion
“Letter of Consent” practice in Vietnam is not automatically accepted; examiner discretion applies

This case was a test of whether international brand owners can protect stylized modern marks in Vietnam when facing traditional prior marks.

3. KENFOX Strategy & Actions

Step 1: Classification-Based Distinction Analysis

We began by reframing the dispute through the lens most relevant to Vietnamese examination practice: the nature and purpose of the goods/services, their trade channels, and target consumers. The cited mark LATITUDE (Reg. No. 201427) covers Class 09 computer equipment, i.e., technology hardware typically marketed through IT distributors, retail channels, or B2B procurement for general office use. By contrast, the applied-for mark L@ttitude under IR No. 1215932 was pursued for Class 42 services involving fire-prevention systems (with additional coverage in Classes 09, 35, and 37). Class 42 in this context entails life-safety engineering, system design, and technical consultancy, procured via regulated tenders, project specifications, and compliance-driven decision cycles. End users are industrial and commercial operators (developers, factories, building owners) working with EPC contractors and certified integrators-not the general consumer electronics market.

Resulting argument: Although the strings “LATITUDE” and “L@ttitude” exhibit surface similarity, the market function, purchasing context, professional audience, and regulatory environment are materially different. These differences lower the likelihood of confusion because the marks operate in different commercial ecosystems with minimal overlap in perception or point-of-sale.

Step 2: Stylization & Conceptual Distance

Next, we addressed distinctiveness at the sign level. We acknowledged that Vietnamese practice treats stylization cautiously, but emphasized that the “@” substitution in L@ttitude introduces non-trivial visual disruption and a modern digital connotation that the plain word “LATITUDE” does not convey. In composite assessment (sight, sound, and concept), the “@” symbol alters the overall impression and steers the mark toward a tech/connected-systems reading aligned with fire-safety systems, monitoring, and integration services. We paired this with a marketplace reality check: specifiers and safety officers are trained, detail-oriented professionals using technical datasheets and compliance criteria; their heightened attention further reduces confusion risk even where some phonetic resemblance exists. The point was not to claim stylization alone saves the day, but to show it contributes to distinctiveness when combined with different market purpose and buyer sophistication.

Step 3: Letter of Consent Strategy

To convert a close case into an approvable one, we secured a formal Letter of Consent from the owner of the cited LATITUDE registration. We didn’t present consent as a mere formality; we contextualized it for the examiner: (i) the parties’ good-faith intent to coexist without misleading consumers; (ii) the absence of competitive proximity given the different commercial spheres; and (iii) the international consistency of allowing the applicant to register in Vietnam on the same principled basis recognized in other jurisdictions. While a consent letter is not automatically determinative in Vietnam, it is a weighty indicator that the most directly affected right holder perceives no real-world confusion risk – which aligns with the market and classification analysis above.

Step 4: Persuasive Appeal Submission

We then filed Appeal No. KN4-2016-00007, packaging the record so it read like a judiciary-ready case file rather than a routine reply. The submission comprised:

A legal brief directly rebutting Article 74.2(e) grounds, tying statutory language to the facts (classification, channels, consumer sophistication, and overall impression).
The Letter of Consent as substantive evidence of coexistence feasibility.
A market and consumer analysis explaining procurement pathways, professional buyer behavior, and regulatory oversight in fire-prevention services.
A classification-conflict argument mapping the goods/services to distinct commercial realities and addressing any perceived overlap.
We ensured procedural precision—certified translations, exhibit indexing, and affidavit formalities – so the IP Vietnam could rely on the file without evidentiary friction. This meticulous approach helped shift the matter from a formal refusal to a reasoned allowance grounded in both law and marketplace logic.

4. Outcome

IP Vietnam issued Decision No. 1131/QĐ-SHTT, overturning the refusal and granting protection for “L@ttitude” in Vietnam under IR No. 1215932.

Result: Provisional refusal annulled – registration secured.

5. Key Lessons for Brand Owners

[i] Classification analysis is critical: When a refusal cites similarity to an earlier mark, don’t argue the sign in a vacuum. Map the goods/services to their real buying contexts: who purchases, how they purchase, and under what regulatory or technical standards. If your mark lives in a specialized, compliance-driven channel (e.g., safety engineering, healthcare devices) while the cited mark targets general consumer retail, that market separation-in function, channels, and audience-can materially lower confusion risk and help overcome Article 74.2(e) objections.

[ii] Stylization can build distinctiveness (when used intelligently): Examiner practice in Vietnam is conservative, but not blind to reality. Non-traditional elements (like symbol substitutions or distinctive letterforms) can shift overall commercial impression, especially when those elements align with your product’s positioning (e.g., “connected systems,” “digital monitoring”). Stylization will rarely win alone -but combined with clear marketplace differences, it strengthens the argument that consumers won’t mistake source.

[iii] A Letter of Consent can sway outcomes in close cases: Letter of Consent t is not automatic approval in Vietnam, yet it’s powerful evidence of real-world coexistence feasibility. When the senior right holder expressly authorizes registration and use, it signals no competitive intent, limited channel overlap, and low misdirection risk. Frame the consent within your broader record – classification distinctions, buyer sophistication, and procurement patterns – so it operates as substantive proof, not a mere formality.

[iv] Vietnam accepts nuanced coexistence arguments – if you build the record: Refusals can be reversed when advocacy connects statute to marketplace facts with precision. Well-organized filings (indexed exhibits, certified translations, affidavits) that explain who buys, how they evaluate, and why they won’t be confused give examiners a defensible path to allowance. In short, informed, evidence-rich advocacy can shift decisions even in a system known for strict distinctiveness thresholds.

6. What This Case Proves About KENFOX?

Ability to overturn refusal cases in Vietnam – a jurisdiction known for rigid examination
Strategic deployment of classification analysis + consent mechanism
Skilled in non-traditional mark protection (symbols / stylization)
Mastery of Madrid System responses & administrative appeals
Delivering results where risk of rejection was high

We convert trademark theory into market-enforceable rights – even in challenging cases.

QUAN, Nguyen Vu | Partner, IP Attorney

PHAN, Do Thi | Special Counsel

HONG, Hoang Thi Tuyet | Senior Trademark Attorney