Zhong Wu vs. ZHONGYU: 越南商标差异分析的原则

即使只有一个驳回理由，对越南知识产权局 (VNIPO) 的商标驳回决定提出上诉也面临着巨大的法律挑战。多个驳回理由更是加剧了难度。然而，KENFOX IP & Law Office 最近成功地推翻了一项通过马德里体系指定越南的商标驳回决定，尽管该商标已被三个不同的理由驳回。

Appealing a trademark refusal decision from the Intellectual Property Office of Vietnam (VNIPO) presents significant legal challenges, even with a single ground for refusal. Facing multiple grounds compounds the difficulty. However, KENFOX IP & Law Office recently succeeded in overturning a refusal for a trademark filed through the Madrid System designating Vietnam, despite the mark being rejected on three distinct grounds.

是什么说服了越南知识产权局 (VNIPO) 重新考虑其最初的结论，最终认可了先前因包含汉字和与两个引证商标相似而被驳回的商标的显著性？从这一成功上诉中可以吸取哪些教训？

What persuaded the VNIPO to reconsider its initial conclusion and ultimately recognize the distinctiveness of a trademark previously rejected for containing Chinese characters and exhibiting similarities to two cited marks? What lessons can be learned from this successful appeal?

背景 – Background

2018年，越南知识产权局 (VNIPO) 以违反《知识产权法》的三项条款为由，拒绝为商标“中武，汉字及图形”提供保护，具体是第74.2(a)、74.2(e) 和 74.2(h) 条。具体而言：

In 2018, the VNIPO refused protection for the trademark “Zhong Wu, Chinese characters and device” citing three provisions of the Intellectual Property Law: Articles 74.2(a), 74.2(e), and 74.2(h). Specifically:

主要启示 – Key takeways

制定商标驳回上诉策略 – Developing a Trademark Refusal Appeal Strategy

当一个商标面临三个驳回理由时，成功上诉的前景似乎令人生畏。多个驳回理由无疑会降低获得保护的机会。然而，这并不一定意味着不可逾越的障碍。除了彻底了解驳回理由外，精心构建的论点、全面的证据和经验丰富的知识产权律师对于取得成功的结果至关重要。

When a trademark faces rejection on three grounds, the prospect of a successful appeal may seem daunting. Multiple grounds for refusal undoubtedly diminish the chances of securing protection. However, this does not necessarily signify an insurmountable obstacle. Besides a thorough understanding of the refusal reasons, a well-constructed argument, comprehensive evidence, and experienced IP counsel are crucial for a successful outcome.

1. 理解驳回理由 – Understanding the Grounds for Refusal

在越南，商标审查报告往往比较简短，通常只概述驳回的法律依据，而没有进行详细的分析。这种缺乏清晰度的做法可能会阻碍申请人提起上诉，因为驳回的真正原因可能仍然模糊不清。因此，为了成功上诉，申请人必须推断出驳回背后的根本原因，并收集证据证明其商标符合保护条件。在本案中，审查员驳回了商标申请，原因是认为该商标与两个引证商标相似，可能造成消费者混淆。具体而言：

In Vietnam, trademark examination reports tend to be brief, often outlining the legal bases for refusal without detailed analysis. This lack of clarity can hinder applicants seeking to appeal, as the true reasons for refusal may remain obscure. To mount a successful appeal, applicants must therefore deduce the underlying reasons for the refusal and gather evidence demonstrating the mark’s eligibility for protection. In this case, the examiner refused the trademark application due to its perceived similarity to two cited marks, creating a likelihood of consumer confusion. Specifically:

图形要素的相似性：审查员认为，申请商标中的图形要素“”与引证商标中的图形要素“” 相似。具体而言，这两个商标都使用了字母“W”，其布局和整体形状相似，可能导致消费者混淆，尤其是在快速浏览时。

Similarity of the Device: The examiner found the device element “” in the applied-for mark to be similar to the device “” in the cited mark. Specifically, both marks employ a stylized “W” with comparable layout and overall shape, potentially leading to consumer confusion, especially at a glance.

“Zhong”要素的相似性：审查员还注意到申请商标中的“Zhong”要素与引证商标（已失效但未超过五年）中的“ZHONGYU”要素存在相似之处。这种相似性体现在商标的语音（听觉）和视觉方面。

Similarity of the “Zhong” Element: The examiner also noted a resemblance between the “Zhong” element in the applied-for mark and the “ZHONGYU” element in the cited mark, which had expired but not more than 5 years. This similarity exists in both the phonetic (auditory) and visual aspects of the marks.

混淆的可能性：审查员认为，图形要素和“Zhong”要素的相似性可能会误导消费者对商品的商业来源产生误解。值得注意的是，对于第 25 类商品（服装、鞋类），消费者通常没有时间仔细检查商标，这增加了混淆的风险。

Likelihood of Confusion: The examiner asserted that the similarities in both the device and the “Zhong” element could mislead consumers regarding the commercial origin of the goods. Notably, for products in Class 25 (clothing, footwear), consumers often lack the time for careful examination of trademarks, increasing the risk of confusion.

2. 分析组合商标图形要素的差异：指导原则 – Analyzing Differences in the Device Element of Composite Marks: Guiding Principles

通常，在比较组合商标（包含文字和图形要素的商标）时，如果字母或文字相同、位置相同，并且风格要素（字体、字形、颜色）不足以 tạo ra 显着的视觉区别，则可能会发现图形要素相似。但是，如果仅某些字符或部分文字相同，并且商标之间的“样式或其他视觉要素明显不同”，则它们可能被视为视觉上不相似。

Generally, when comparing composite trademarks (those containing both word and device elements), similarity in the device element may be found if the letters or words are identical, share the same position, and the stylistic elements (typeface, font, color) are insufficient to create a significant visual distinction. However, if only some characters or a portion of the words are identical, and the “style or other visual elements differ distinctly” between the marks, they may be considered visually dissimilar.

在本案中，两个商标（“中武”和“PROSPECS”）之间没有完全相同的字符或文字。虽然可以认为图形要素之间存在一些相似之处（均为字母“W”的描绘），但“样式或其他视觉要素明显不同”。申请人在证明商标之间的差异性时，需要强调这一点：

In this case, there are no identical characters or words between the two marks (“Zhong Wu” and “PROSPECS”). While it can be argued that the device elements share some similarity (both being stylized depictions of the letter “W”), the “style or other visual elements differ distinctly“. This is a crucial point for the applicant to emphasize in demonstrating the dissimilarity between the marks:

样式：申请商标结合了拉丁文字、汉字和图形，创造了一种独特的样式，与仅包含拉丁文字和图形的引证商标截然不同 – Style: The applied-for mark combines Latin script, Chinese characters, and a stylized device, creating a unique style distinct from the cited mark, which features only Latin script and a device.

视觉要素：应进行详细分析，以突出显示两个商标中字母“W”的笔画、粗细、角度和构图方面的明显差异- Visual Elements: A detailed analysis should highlight the clear differences in the strokes, thickness, angles, and composition of the stylized “W” in the two marks.

字体：**尽管两个商标都使用无衬线字体，但字体有所不同。应分析这种差异，以证明其对整体视觉差异的贡献 – Font: Although both marks use a sans-serif typeface, the fonts differ. This distinction should be analyzed to demonstrate its contribution to the overall visual dissimilarity.

这一原则在比较商标以确定显著性时至关重要。它允许申请人关注图形要素的风格和视觉差异，以证明整体上的不相似性。此外，这种分析有助于减轻任何感知到的相似性的影响。虽然图形要素可能存在一些相似之处，但明显的风格和视觉差异可以最大程度地减少这种相似性的影响，从而使越南知识产权局 (VNIPO) 相信这些商标仍然具有可区分性。通过充分利用这些风格和视觉上的区别，并结合对商标的整体评估，申请人可以加强其关于不相似性以及申请商标与引证商标相比的显著性的论点。

This principle is crucial when comparing trademarks to establish distinctiveness. It allows applicants to focus on stylistic and visual differences in the device elements to demonstrate overall dissimilarity. Furthermore, such analysis helps mitigate the impact of any perceived similarities. While the device elements may share some resemblance, distinct stylistic and visual differences can minimize the impact of such similarities, persuading the VNIPO that the marks remain distinguishable. By thoroughly exploiting these stylistic and visual distinctions, combined with a holistic assessment of the marks, applicants can strengthen their arguments for dissimilarity and the distinctiveness of the applied-for mark compared to the cited mark.

3. 分析组合商标文字要素的差异：适用原则 – Analyzing Differences in the Word Element of Composite Marks: Applicable Principles

证明组合商标文字要素的不相似性需要更深入的分析。通常，以下原则适用于评估文字商标之间的相似性或不相似性：

Demonstrating dissimilarity in the word element of composite marks requires more in-depth analysis. Typically, the following principles are applied to assess similarity or dissimilarity between word marks:

(i) 语音比较：如果视觉上可感知的商标包含一个或多个可发音的文字要素，则可以对其进行语音比较。即使文字要素还包含图形要素或使用特殊字符、字母、字体或颜色，这种比较也是相关的。

Phonetic comparison: A phonetic comparison of visually perceptible marks can be conducted if they contain one or more pronounceable word elements. This comparison is relevant even if the word element also includes a figurative element or utilizes special characters, lettering, fonts, or colors.

(ii) 消费者认知：语音比较必须基于相关国家或地区普通消费者的发音模式。外来词在不同国家或地区的发音可能不同，原产国的发音并不总是相关。

Consumer perception: Phonetic comparison must be based on the pronunciation patterns of average consumers in the relevant country. Foreign words may be pronounced differently in different countries, and the pronunciation in the country of origin is not always relevant.

(iii) 整体语音印象：包含文字要素的商标的整体语音印象取决于音节的数量和顺序，以及在特定国家或地区的发音。如果冲突商标中的文字要素发音产生的声音相同或非常接近以至于无法区分语音，则存在语音相似性。

Overall phonetic impression: The overall phonetic impression of a mark containing a word element depends on the number and sequence of syllables, and the pronunciation in a specific country. Phonetic similarity exists if the sounds produced by pronouncing the word elements in the conflicting marks are identical or sufficiently close to be phonetically indistinguishable.

(iv) 外来词或不熟悉词语的语音价值：外来词或不熟悉词语的语音价值取决于相关国家或地区的公众如何发音。但是，由于地区差异或不同的消费群体，一个国家或地区内部可能存在发音差异。

Phonetic value of foreign or unfamiliar words: The phonetic value of a foreign or unfamiliar word is determined by how the public in the relevant country pronounces it. However, variations in pronunciation may exist within a country due to regional differences or diverse consumer groups.

(v) 组合商标中文字要素的优先级：在比较组合商标的语音相似性时，文字要素通常比图形要素更重要，因为消费者倾向于阅读和记住文字，而不是伴随的视觉要素。例如，以下印度尼西亚的组合商标尽管显示的图像不同，但仍被认定为语音相似。

Priority of word elements in composite marks: When comparing composite marks for phonetic similarity, word elements are generally given greater weight than figurative elements because consumers tend to read and remember words rather than accompanying visual elements. For example, the following composite marks in Indonesia were found to be phonetically similar despite the different images displayed.

关于原则 (i)：即使文字要素包含图形组成部分或使用独特的字符、字母、字体或颜色，该原则也允许进行语音比较。在本案中，尽管“中武”包含汉字，而“ZHONGYU”包含图形要素，但语音比较仍然是允许的。

Regarding principle (i): This principle allows for phonetic comparison even if the word element contains figurative components or utilizes unique characters, lettering, fonts, or colors. In this case, although “Zhong Wu” includes Chinese characters and “ZHONGYU” incorporates a stylized figurative element, a phonetic comparison remains permissible.

关于原则 (ii) 和 (iii) (Regarding principles (ii) and (iii))

音节数量和顺序：“Zhong Wu”有两个音节，而“ZHONGYU”有三个音节。音节的顺序也不同 – Number and sequence of syllables: “Zhong Wu” has two syllables, while “ZHONGYU” has three. The sequence of syllables also differs.

节奏：这两个词语在发音时的节奏模式不同。“Zhong Wu”遵循 2/2 节奏，而“ZHONGYU”具有 3/2 节奏- hythm: The rhythmic patterns of the two words are distinct when pronounced. “Zhong Wu” follows a 2/2 rhythm, whereas “ZHONGYU” has a 3/2 rhythm.

原则 (ii) 的应用：**分析越南消费者如何发音这些词语。越南人对“ZHONGYU”的发音可能与中文发音不同，从而产生更明显的语音差异 – Application of principle (ii): Analyze how Vietnamese consumers pronounce these words. It is possible that Vietnamese pronunciation of “ZHONGYU” will deviate from the Chinese pronunciation, creating a more pronounced phonetic difference.

关于原则 (iv) – Regarding principle (iv):

语音价值：**考虑越南消费者如何发音“Zhong Wu”和“ZHONGYU” – Phonetic value: Consider how Vietnamese consumers pronounce “Zhong Wu” and “ZHONGYU.”

外来词：由于“Zhong Wu”是一个中文词语，因此需要考虑其中文发音以及越南消费者如何发音。- Foreign word: As “Zhong Wu” is a Chinese term, consider both its Chinese pronunciation and how Vietnamese consumers pronounce it.

关于原则 (v) – Regarding principle (v):

强调文字要素：在本案中，文字要素“Zhong Wu”和“ZHONGYU”较为突出，比图形要素更容易吸引消费者注意。因此，消费者很容易察觉到这些文字要素之间的语音差异。- Emphasis on word elements: In this case, the word elements “Zhong Wu” and “ZHONGYU” are prominent and more likely to attract consumer attention than the figurative elements. Therefore, consumers will readily perceive the phonetic differences between these word elements.

通过应用这些原则，申请人可以构建令人信服的论点来证明两个商标之间的语音差异：

By applying these principles, the applicant can construct a compelling argument to demonstrate the phonetic dissimilarity between the two trademarks:

详细分析：比较两个词语的音节数量、音节顺序、节奏和发音。Detailed analysis: Compare the number of syllables, syllable sequence, rhythm, and pronunciation of the two words.

强调区别：**强调语音差异足以使消费者区分商标。Emphasize distinctions: Highlight that the phonetic differences are sufficient for consumers to distinguish the marks.
与其他因素相结合：**将语音分析与视觉和概念分析相结合，以加强关于申请商标显著性的论点。Integrate with other factors: Combine phonetic analysis with visual and conceptual analysis to strengthen the argument for the distinctiveness of the applied-for mark.

总之，通过有效利用语音比较原则，申请人可以从语音角度说服越南知识产权局 (VNIPO) 相信申请商标中的文字要素与引证商标相比具有不相似性和显著性。

In conclusion, by effectively utilizing the principles of phonetic comparison, the applicant can persuade the VNIPO of the dissimilarity and distinctiveness of the word element in the applied-for mark compared to the cited mark, from a phonetic perspective.

结论 – Closing thoughts

即使在涉及多个驳回理由的复杂案件中，只要有合理的法律策略、令人信服的论点、有说服力的证据以及经验丰富的知识产权律师的支持，仍然有可能成功上诉。成功的上诉表明申请人有能力有效地说服越南知识产权局 (VNIPO)，为该局重新考虑并推翻其最初决定提供依据，从而保护申请人的合法权益。

Even in complex cases involving multiple grounds for refusal, a successful appeal remains possible with a sound legal strategy, compelling arguments, persuasive evidence, and the support of experienced IP attorneys. A successful appeal demonstrates the applicant’s ability to effectively persuade the VNIPO, providing the Office with a basis to reconsider and overturn its initial decision, thereby protecting the applicant’s legitimate rights.

在商标注册过程中遇到挑战？您的商标申请是否遭到驳回？不要让法律障碍阻碍您品牌的發展。立即联系 KENFOX IP & Law Office。凭借 15 年的知识产权法经验，我们有信心成为您值得信赖的合作伙伴，协助您在越南和全球有效地保护您的商标。

Facing challenges in registering your trademark? Has your trademark application been met with a refusal? Don’t let legal obstacles hinder your brand’s progress. Contact KENFOX IP & Law Office today. With 15 years of experience in intellectual property law, we are confident in our ability to be your trusted partner, assisting you in effectively protecting your trademark in Vietnam and internationally.

QUAN, Nguyen Vu | Partner, IP Attorney

PHAN, Do Thi | Special Counsel

HONG, Hoang Thi Tuyet | Senior Trademark Attorney