“Fabrilcar” 对比 “FABRICA” 及 “FABRICAIR”: 如何在越南成功上诉商标驳回？

2024年10月16日，越南知识产权局（“VNIPO”）发布了关于接受第1470915号国际注册申请的决定，该申请涉及Aspöck Systems GmbH名下的 “Fabrilcar” 商标。VNIPO撤回了其先前的驳回决定，结束了长达四年的上诉程序。这对我们的客户Aspöck Systems GmbH来说是一次巨大的胜利。Aspöck Systems GmbH是一家奥地利公司，成立于1977年9月，专门从事车辆照明系统的开发和制造。

On 16/10/2024, the IP Offfice of Vietnam (“IP VIETNAM“) issued a Decision on acceptance of IR No. 1470915 for the mark “Fabrilcar” in the name of Aspöck Systems GmbH, withdrawing its provisional refusal decision and terminating a lengthy 4-year appeal process. This is a great victory for our client, Aspöck Systems GmbH, an Austrian company that specializes in developing and manufacturing lighting systems for vehicles, founded in September 1977.

指定越南的第1470915号国际注册申请 “Fabricar” 商标，因被认为与引证商标 “FABRICA” 和 “FABRICAIR” 近似，其第11类和第37类所有商品和服务，以及第09类部分商品和第35类部分服务，均遭到了临时驳回。

The mark “Fabricar” under IR No. 1470915, designating Vietnam, faced a provisional refusal for all goods and services in Classes 11 and 37, as well as certain goods in Class 09 and services in Class 35, due to the mark being allegedly similar to two cited marks “FABRICA” and “FABRICAIR”.

为应对基于近似性的商标驳回，申请人可以采取多种策略来克服驳回决定。 他们可以提出论证，强调申请商标与引证商标之间的差异，重点关注视觉、语音或概念上的区别。 或者，他们可以从引证商标的所有者那里获得同意书，允许共存。 另一种选择是通过五年不使用撤销行动来挑战引证商标的有效性。 此外，申请人还可以通过限制或删除冲突的商品或服务来修改其申请，以避免重叠。

To address a trademark refusal based on alleged similarity to prior marks, applicants have several strategies to overcome the refusal. They can present arguments highlighting the dissimilarities between the applied-for mark and the cited marks, focusing on visual, phonetic, or conceptual distinctions.  Alternatively, they may obtain a Letter of Consent from the owner of the cited marks, allowing coexistence. Another option is to challenge the validity of the cited marks through a five-year non-use cancellation action. Additionally, applicants can amend their application by limiting or removing the conflicting goods or services to avoid overlap.

客户告知我们，“FABRICA” 商标 (国际注册号654791) 的所有者Fabrica S.R.L. 经营范围完全不同，是一家“出版社”，而丹麦公司FABRICAIR A/S 则使用 “FABRICAIR” 商标 (注册号958906) 专门从事空气管道系统的制造。客户询问我们是否可以在答复中加入相关论点，请求越南知识产权局对其商标授予保护，并强调各企业业务的显著区别。

The client informed us that Fabrica S.R.L., owner of the trademark “FABRICA” (IR No. 654791), operates in a completely different field as a “publishing house”, whereas the Danish company FABRICAIR A/S specializes in manufacturing air ducting systems under the trademark “FABRICAIR” (No. 958906). The client asked whether we could include arguments in our response requesting IP VIETNAM to grant protection for their mark, emphasizing the distinct nature of the respective businesses.

这是商标所有人在面临驳回时经常提出的论点，他们认为引证商标所有者的主要业务活动与其自身存在显著差异，因此，如果商标共存，就不会产生利益冲突。 然而，在实践中，越南知识产权局审查员并不关注引证商标所有者的实际业务领域。 相反，他们通过直接比较申请商标与引证商标，以及与它们相关的各自商品或服务来评估商标的相似性。

This is a common argument raised by trademark owners when facing a refusal, asserting that the primary business activities of the cited trademark owner differ significantly from their own, and therefore, no conflict of interest would arise if the marks co-exist. However, in practice, IP VIETNAM examiners do not focus on the actual business sectors of the cited trademark owners. Instead, they assess the similarity of the marks by directly comparing the applied-for mark with the cited marks, as well as the respective goods or services associated with them.

客户面临着挑战性的局面，因为他们的商标 “Fabrilcar” 在发音上与两个引证商标 “FABRICA” 和 “FABRICAIR” 近似。 此外，其商标在第11类和第17类，以及第09类和第35类中的部分商品和服务，也被认为与引证商标涵盖的商品和服务相似。

The client faces a challenging situation as their mark, “Fabrilcar“, is phonetically similar to the two cited marks, “FABRICA” and “FABRICAIR“. Additionally, the goods and services associated with their mark in Classes 11 and 17, as well as certain goods and services in Classes 09 and 35, are considered similar to those covered by the cited marks.

在分析了引证商标后，我们制定了战略性方法，通过采取综合措施来解决复杂的驳回问题。 这些措施包括删除第35类中某些直接冲突的服务，以克服与第一个引证商标的冲突，以及获得第二个引证商标所有人的同意书。

After analyzing the cited marks, we developed a strategic approach to address the complex refusal by adopting comprehensive measures. These included removing certain directly conflicting services in Class 35 to overcome the conflict with the first cited mark and obtaining a Letter of Consent from the owner of the second cited mark.

越南知识产权局在仔细考虑了我们的上诉后，认为我方关于商标显著性和不存在消费者混淆的详细论证具有说服力，因此撤回了其临时驳回决定，最终授予了我们客户的商标以保护。

After carefully taking our appeal into consideration, which presented detailed arguments on the mark’s distinctiveness and the absence of consumer confusion, the VNIPO found our reasoning persuasive and withdrew its provisional refusal, ultimately granting protection for our client’s mark.

主要启示 – Key takeways

[1] 同意书 – Letter of Consent

从法律上讲，越南没有采用同意书制度来排除混淆的可能性。越南知识产权法没有明确将同意书（“LoC”）作为商标争议的决定性因素。这意味着VNIPO没有义务接受LoC作为混淆不可能发生的自动证明。商标法的核心原则是防止消费者混淆。即使两个商标所有者都同意混淆不太可能发生，VNIPO的主要关注点仍然是这些商标是否相似到足以使消费者对商品或服务的来源产生混淆。这就是为什么即使有LoC，明确的差异性证据也如此重要的原因。

Statutorily, Vietnam does not adopt consent letter regime to exclude the likelihood of confusion. Vietnam’s IP law doesn’t explicitly include Letters of Consent (“LoC”) as a deciding factor in trademark disputes. This means IP Vietnam isn’t obligated to accept an LoC as automatic proof that confusion is unlikely. The core principle in trademark law is preventing consumer confusion. Even if two trademark owners agree that confusion isn’t likely, the VNIPO’s primary focus is whether the marks are similar enough to confuse consumers about the origin of goods or services. This is why clear evidence of dissimilarity is so important, even with an LoC.

然而，同意书确实具有支持性证据的价值。虽然不具有法律约束力，但同意书可以对VNIPO的审查员产生积极的影响。它可以证明在先商标的所有者不认为会产生混淆，因此不反对对方商标的注册。这可以加强关于相关商标之间可区分性的论点，因为：

However, a Letter of Consent does hold value as supporting evidence. While not legally binding, a Letter of Consent can positively influence the VNIPO’s examiners. It can demonstrate that the owner of the prior mark doesn’t believe there will be confusion and thus doesn’t object to the registration of the adverse party’s mark. This can strengthen arguments on distinguisability between the marks in questions because:

(i) 当商标所有人提供同意书时，他们含蓄地承认他们不认为申请人的商标侵犯了他们自己的商标。这表明最有可能因潜在混淆而受到损害的当事方（即商标所有者本身）没有看到问题，因此，他们认为这些商标有足够的差异性，可以在市场上共存而不会造成混淆。

When a trademark owner provides a Letter of Consent, they implicitly acknowledge that they don’t see the applicant’s mark as an infringement of their own. It suggests that the parties most likely to be harmed by potential confusion (i.e., the trademark owners themselves) don’t see a problem and thus, they believe the marks are sufficiently different to coexist in the marketplace without causing confusion.

(ii) 这向VNIPO表明双方已经自行解决了任何潜在的争议，使审查员更有可能接受申请人关于可区分性的论点。

It signals to the VNIPO that the two parties have already resolved any potential disputes themselves, making the examiner more likely to accept the applicant’s arguments for distinguishability.

(iii) 由于潜在的侵权问题似乎已通过同意书解决，VNIPO可以更客观地专注于评估商标之间的内在差异。这使您可以更有效地强调这些区别。

With the issue of potential infringement seemingly resolved by the LoC, the VNIPO can focus more objectively on assessing the inherent differences between the marks. This allows you to emphasize those distinctions more effectively.

VNIPO会根据具体情况处理同意书。您的论证强度和案件的具体情况将显著影响结果。您仍然必须就相关商标在视觉外观、发音、含义、目标消费者和商品/服务方面的差异提出令人信服的论点，证明混淆的可能性极小，以增加您的成功机会。

The VNIPO handles LoCs on a case-by-case basis. The strength of your arguments and the specific circumstances of your case will significantly impact the outcome. You must still present compelling arguments on dissimilarities between the marks at issues concerning Visual appearance, pronunciation, meaning, target consumers and goods/services, demonstrating minimal likelihood of confusion to increase your chances of success.

[2] 删除冲突的商品/服务 – Deleting the conflicting goods/services

针对商标驳回提出强有力的论据有助于克服驳回，但这并非总是如此，尤其是当两个商标高度相似且商品/服务密切相关时。如果商标在视觉、发音或概念上非常相似，就更难说服越南知识产权局不存在混淆的可能性。因此，如果克服驳回的机会似乎很渺茫，仅依靠论证来处理高度相似的情况是有风险的。为了降低这种风险，应积极探索其他选择，例如删除直接冲突的商品/服务。删除冲突的商品/服务向越南知识产权局表明，您愿意采取措施解决他们的担忧，并与引证商标的所有者和平共处。这可以使他们更容易接受您对剩余商品/服务的论点。

Rendering strong arguments against a trademark refusal is helpful to overcome the refusal, but it is not always the case, especially, when two marks are highly similar and the goods/services are closely related. If the marks are visually, phonetically, or conceptually very similar, it becomes harder to convince IP Vietnam that there is no likelihood of confusion. Therefore, if the chances of overcoming the refusal seem slim, relying solely on arguments in cases of high similarity is risky. To mitigate this risk, proactively explore alternative options such as deleting the directly conflicting goods/services. Deleting conflicting goods/services demonstrates to IP Vietnam that you’re willing to take steps to address their concerns and coexist peacefully with the owner of the cited mark. This can make them more receptive to your arguments for the remaining goods/services.

在越南，删除重叠的商品/服务是克服商标驳回的有效策略，尤其是在高度相似的情况下。如果冲突的商品/服务非核心业务，删除它们或许是值得的，这样才能确保核心产品的商标注册。

Deleting overlapping goods/services can be a highly effective strategy for overcoming trademark refusals in Vietnam, especially in cases of high similarity. If the conflicting goods/services are not core to your business, deleting them might be a worthwhile trade-off to secure the trademark for your main offerings.

结论 – Final thoughts

在越南克服商标驳回需要深厚的专业知识和战略上的坚持。基于相似性的商标驳回可能难以克服，尤其是商标之间的高度相似性和相关的商品/服务会使成功充满挑战。

Overcoming trademark refusals in Vietnam requires deep expertise and strategic persistence. Trademark refusals based on similarity can be difficult to overcome, especially, high similarity between marks and related goods/services can make success challenging.

然而，这并不是路的尽头。通过将细致的论证与积极的措施（例如获得同意书和策略性地删除冲突的商品/服务）相结合，申请人可以增加他们在越南获得商标保护的机会，即使面对具有挑战性的驳回。

However, it is not the end of the road. By combining meticulous argumentation with proactive measures like securing a Letter of Consent and strategically deleting conflicting goods/services, applicants can increase their chances of securing trademark protection in Vietnam, even in the face of challenging refusals.