Commercial Arbitration and Issues Related to Intellectual Property Rights

January 29, 2026

1.Legal Framework on Intellectual Property Rights

“Article 4. Interpretation of Terms
…

Intellectual property rights are rights of organizations and individuals over intellectual assets, including copyright and related rights, industrial property rights, and rights to plant varieties.”

(Intellectual Property Law 2005)

Intellectual property rights (IPRs) aim to protect creative activities, encourage innovation, and ensure fair competition. IPRs constitute one of the most important legal institutions in the knowledge-based economy, directly reflecting the level of protection afforded to creative activities and investment. Moreover, intellectual property serves as an instrument for regulating competitive relations and promoting sustainable development.

Pursuant to Clause 1 Article 4 of the 2005 Intellectual Property Law, intellectual property rights are categorized into three main groups.

First, copyright and related rights. According to Clause 1 Article 3 of the Intellectual Property Law 2005, the objects of copyright and related rights include literary, artistic, and scientific works; performances; sound and video recordings; broadcasting programs; and encrypted satellite program-carrying signals. Copyright protection arises automatically from the moment a work is created and fixed in a certain material form, regardless of its content, quality, form, means, or language of expression. Related rights are protected from the moment performances, sound and video recordings, broadcasting programs, or encrypted satellite program-carrying signals are fixed or performed, provided that such protection does not prejudice copyright.

Second, industrial property rights, which include inventions, industrial designs, layout-designs of integrated circuits, trade secrets, trademarks, trade names, and geographical indications (Clause 2 Article 3 of the Intellectual Property Law 2005). Industrial property rights are established based on the grant of protection titles by the Intellectual Property Office of Vietnam or the recognition of international registrations in accordance with international treaties to which Vietnam is a party. Notably, well-known trademarks are protected without the requirement of registration and are established based on actual use and widespread public recognition, in accordance with international standards under the Paris Convention. Article 75 of the Intellectual Property Law 2005 sets out the criteria for determining a well-known trademark. In addition, rights to trade secrets are established on the basis of lawful possession of such secrets and the implementation of confidentiality measures.

Finally, rights to plant varieties refer to the rights of organizations and individuals over plant varieties that they have bred or discovered and developed, or over which they hold ownership rights. Pursuant to Clause 3 Article 3 of the Intellectual Property Law 2005, the objects of plant variety rights include plant varieties and propagating materials. Rights to plant varieties are established based on the grant of a plant variety protection certificate by a competent state authority.

Under the law, only the right holders are entitled to use or authorize others to use their respective intellectual property objects. In order to protect both private interests and public interests, the law provides certain limitations on intellectual property exclusivity. Limitations on copyright are stipulated in Articles 25 and 36; limitations on related rights are stipulated in Articles 32 and 33; limitations on industrial property rights are stipulated in Article 125; and limitations on plant variety rights are stipulated in Article 190 of the Intellectual Property Law 2005.

2. Arbitration and the Resolution of Intellectual Property Disputes

Intellectual property disputes may be resolved through arbitration if they arise from commercial activities and the parties have a valid arbitration agreement. Commercial arbitration is commonly applied to disputes relating to intellectual property licensing and assignment contracts; disputes over royalty payments and license fees; disputes arising from franchise agreements; disputes related to the use and exploitation of intellectual property rights in the digital environment; disputes arising from acts of intellectual property infringement; and disputes concerning the licensing or exploitation of intellectual property objects.

However, commercial arbitration does not have jurisdiction to grant, revoke, or declare invalid intellectual property protection titles, as such powers fall exclusively within the authority of competent state agencies or the courts.

Resolving intellectual property disputes through arbitration offers several advantages. First, arbitration ensures a high level of confidentiality, which helps organizations and individuals protect business secrets, technologies, and inventions. Second, parties may select arbitrators with extensive experience and expertise in intellectual property law, thereby ensuring professional adjudication. Third, arbitration procedures are flexible, and arbitral awards are final and binding, which helps shorten dispute resolution time.

Nevertheless, arbitration also presents certain limitations. Arbitration depends on the existence of a valid arbitration agreement; without such agreement, arbitration cannot be initiated. In addition, arbitral tribunals lack coercive powers, as they cannot impose administrative or criminal sanctions for intellectual property infringement. Furthermore, arbitration faces challenges in evidence collection, particularly in cases involving digital environments or cross-border infringements.

3. Notable Intellectual Property Disputes

Below are two representative intellectual property disputes.

One of the most well-known trademark disputes is the case between Asanzo and Asano. The plaintiff, Company Đ Co., Ltd., was granted a trademark registration certificate for the mark “Asano” covering goods in Classes 7, 9, and 11. In 2015, Company Đ discovered that A Vietnam Electronics Joint Stock Company was using the mark “Asanzo” on its goods and services, including televisions, air conditioners, blenders, and other household appliances, with designs and presentations similar to the protected trademark of Company Đ. Consequently, Company Đ initiated legal proceedings against A Vietnam Electronics Joint Stock Company.

In Official Letter No. 337/SHTT-TTKN dated May 6, 2016, the Intellectual Property Office of Vietnam under the Ministry of Science and Technology concluded that although there were differences in color, additional consonants (the letter “Z”), and the fuller presentation of the letter “A,” the combination of letters and images as a whole was still likely to cause confusion with the protected trademark. Accordingly, the Intellectual Property Office determined that the defendant’s conduct constituted trademark infringement under Article 129 of the Intellectual Property Law.

Rejecting the appeals of both parties, the appellate court upheld the first-instance judgment No. 658/2018/KDTM-ST dated May 24, 2018 of the Ho Chi Minh City People’s Court, which partially accepted the plaintiff’s claims, ordered the defendant to cease using the “Asanzo” trademark, and required the defendant to compensate the plaintiff in the amount of VND 100,000,000.

The second case involved T Pharmaceutical Co., Ltd. and P Pharmaceutical Co., Ltd. T Pharmaceutical Co., Ltd. was the owner of the trademark “AIKIDO” registered for goods in Class 10 and the exclusive industrial design for “medicated patch packaging.” In September 2017, P Pharmaceutical Co., Ltd. engaged in acts of using product packaging for “cold compress patches” that was not significantly different from the protected industrial design, while also using the sign “AIKIKO” on product packaging and business documents, and storing such goods for sale.

The court rejected the defendant’s appeal and upheld the first-instance judgment No. 1417/2019/KDTM-ST dated October 18, 2019 of the Ho Chi Minh City People’s Court. The court partially accepted the claims of T Pharmaceutical Co., Ltd., ordering P Pharmaceutical Co., Ltd. to cease its intellectual property infringement and trademark counterfeiting, issue a public apology and correction in newspapers, and pay VND 2,000,000 in appellate court fees and VND 157,500,000 in attorney’s fees.

From notable disputes such as the Asano and AIKIDO cases, it is evident that intellectual property rights play an increasingly important role in business activities and market competition. The registration and protection of intellectual property rights help reduce the risk of disputes, reputational damage, and economic losses for enterprises.

4. Protection of the Rights of Authors and Inventors

In today’s economy, authors and inventors are the subjects who directly create intellectual values, making significant contributions to scientific, technological, and socio-cultural development.

“Article 18. Copyright
Copyright in works as stipulated by this Law includes moral rights and economic rights.”

(Intellectual Property Law 2005)

The rights of authors and inventors are protected through moral rights and economic rights. Moral rights include the right to be named as the author, the right to name the work, and the right to protect the integrity of the work or invention (Article 19 of the Intellectual Property Law 2005). Economic rights require organizations or individuals exploiting or using one, several, or all economic rights as stipulated in Article 20 of the Intellectual Property Law 2005 to pay royalties, remuneration, and other material benefits to the copyright owner.

Such protection prevents unauthorized copying and use while enabling authors and inventors to derive legitimate benefits from their intellectual labor.

Several measures may be applied to protect the rights and interests of authors and inventors:

Civil measures, including requests for cessation of infringement and compensation for damages;

Administrative measures, including administrative sanctions and the confiscation or destruction of infringing goods;

Criminal measures, applicable to serious intellectual property infringement;

Dispute resolution mechanisms, such as negotiation, mediation, and commercial arbitration.

Given the cross-border nature of intellectual property disputes, arbitration offers particular advantages:

Allowing parties to select arbitrators with specialized expertise;

Ensuring confidentiality of business secrets, creativity, and technology;

Providing fast, efficient, and flexible procedures;

Producing final awards that may be recognized and enforced abroad in cases involving foreign elements.

5. The Role of Experts in Resolving Intellectual Property Disputes

In intellectual property disputes, resolution is not solely based on legal provisions but also requires in-depth knowledge of technology, engineering, art, or industry practices. Therefore, experts play a crucial role in ensuring objectivity, expertise, accuracy, and effectiveness in dispute resolution.

First, experts assist in clarifying technical and specialized issues. Many intellectual property disputes involve complex subject matter such as inventions, industrial designs, software, plant varieties, and artistic works. Issues such as novelty, inventive step, industrial applicability, and likelihood of confusion require specialized expertise beyond general legal knowledge.

Second, experts provide professional opinions as a basis for decision-making. Expert opinions, whether in the form of intellectual property assessments or technical consultations, constitute important sources of evidence for determining whether infringement has occurred, assessing the extent of damages, and selecting appropriate remedies.

Third, the participation of independent experts enhances objectivity and transparency in dispute resolution by reducing the risk of misinterpretation or bias in the evaluation of evidence.

Fourth, experts support dispute resolution through arbitration and mediation by explaining technical issues to arbitral tribunals and advising parties on legal and technical risks.

Experts therefore play an indispensable role in intellectual property disputes, ensuring technical accuracy and assisting dispute resolution bodies in rendering fair and lawful decisions.

6. Dispute Resolution at the BIGBOSS International Commercial Arbitration Center

To resolve disputes through arbitration at the BIGBOSS International Commercial Arbitration Center (BBIAC), parties may include one of the following clauses in their contracts:

6.1. Model Arbitration Clause

The parties may further agree on:
(a) the number of arbitrators [one or three];
(b) the place of arbitration [city and/or country];
(c) the governing law of the contract [ ];*
(d) the language of arbitration [ ].**

* Applicable to disputes involving foreign elements
** Applicable to disputes involving foreign elements or where at least one party is a foreign-invested enterprise

6.2. Model Arbitration Clause under the Expedited Procedure

“All disputes arising from or relating to this contract shall be resolved by arbitration at the BIGBOSS International Commercial Arbitration Center (BBIAC) in accordance with its Arbitration Rules. The parties agree that the arbitration proceedings shall be conducted under the Expedited Procedure as stipulated in Article 37 of the BBIAC Arbitration Rules.”

Parties may additionally agree on:
(a) the place of arbitration [city and/or country];
(b) the governing law of the contract [ ];*
(c) the language of arbitration [ ].**

For consultation, please contact: +84 979 133 955.