A notable legal development has recently emerged in the trademark dispute between Binh Minh Plastics Joint Stock Company (the plaintiff) and Binh Minh Viet Plastics Joint Stock Company (the defendant). This case has attracted sustained attention from legal practitioners because it directly concerns the application of trademark infringement law and the evaluation of expert evidence in civil proceedings.
Recently, the Procurator General of the Supreme People’s Procuracy of Vietnam issued a cassation protest decision, requesting the Council of Judges of the Supreme People’s Court to review the case under the cassation procedure. The protest proposes annulling both the first-instance and appellate judgments and remanding the case for retrial in accordance with applicable law. At the same time, the decision temporarily suspends the enforcement of the appellate judgment pending the cassation review.
This protest not only directly affects the outcome of the case but also raises several important legal issues concerning the role of intellectual property expert opinions, the criteria for determining confusingly similar signs, and the evaluation of technical evidence in trademark litigation in Vietnam.
1. Background
The dispute arises between Binh Minh Plastics Joint Stock Company, the owner of the registered trademark “Nhựa Bình Minh” (Binh Minh Plastics) in Vietnam, and Binh Minh Viet Plastics Joint Stock Company, which has used the following signs in connection with its plastic products: “NHỰA BÌNH MINH VIỆT” and “BVM – NHỰA BÌNH MINH”.
The plaintiff argued that these signs are confusingly similar to its protected trademark, thereby constituting trademark infringement under Vietnam’s intellectual property law. The plaintiff therefore brought the dispute before the court, requesting:
- A declaration of trademark infringement
- An order requiring the defendant to cease using the allegedly confusing signs
- Compensation for damages and other remedial measures
However, in the earlier proceedings, both the first-instance and appellate courts dismissed all claims of the plaintiff, finding insufficient grounds to establish infringement of industrial property rights.
This outcome sparked considerable debate among legal experts, particularly because the case file contained multiple expert opinions confirming the presence of confusing similarity.
2. Intellectual Property Expert Opinions
According to the case file, the Vietnam Intellectual Property Research Institute (VIPRI) under the Ministry of Science and Technology issued at least four expert opinions regarding the disputed signs. These expert conclusions consistently determined that the signs “NHỰA BÌNH MINH VIỆT” and “BVM – NHỰA BÌNH MINH” are confusingly similar to the registered trademark “Nhựa Bình Minh.”
In the field of intellectual property, industrial property assessment is a specialized activity used to evaluate (i) the degree of similarity between signs, (ii) the likelihood of consumer confusion, and (iii) whether the use of a sign constitutes infringement of trademark rights. In Vietnam, VIPRI is one of the officially authorized organizations qualified to conduct such expert assessments.
In addition, the Intellectual Property Office of Vietnam (IP Office) issued an official letter in January 2025 stating that the use of the above signs shows indications of infringing the trademark rights of Binh Minh Plastics Joint Stock Company. Therefore, the case file contains significant technical evidence from both an expert assessment body and the state authority responsible for intellectual property administration.
3. Contents of the Supreme Procuracy’s Protest
In its protest decision, the Procurator General of the Supreme People’s Procuracy concluded that the courts’ dismissal of the plaintiff’s claims lacked sufficient legal grounds and failed to adequately assess the evidence in the case file.
The protest highlights three principal issues:
- First, the incomplete evaluation of evidence. According to the Procuracy, the previous judgments did not properly evaluate the expert opinions issued by the Vietnam Intellectual Property Research Institute. Under the principles of civil procedure, expert conclusions constitute an important source of evidence, particularly in matters requiring technical expertise such as assessing trademark signs, determining the likelihood of confusion, and analyzing commercial identification elements. Failure to fully consider these expert opinions may lead to incorrect conclusions regarding the substance of the dispute.
- Second, the potential impact on the lawful rights and interests of the enterprise. The protest also argues that dismissing all claims of the plaintiff may seriously affect legally protected industrial property rights. Under intellectual property law, trademark rights represent an important asset of enterprises, closely associated with commercial reputation and brand value. If the use of confusingly similar signs is not addressed in a timely manner, it may lead to consumer confusion, dilution of brand value, and unfair competition in the marketplace.
- Third, the request for cassation review. Based on the above considerations, the Procurator General requested that: (i) The Council of Judges of the Supreme People’s Court conduct a cassation review; (ii) Both the first-instance and appellate judgments be annulled; and (iii) The case file be remanded for retrial in accordance with applicable law. At the same time, the enforcement of the appellate judgment has been temporarily suspended in order to prevent legal consequences while awaiting the cassation review.
4. Core Legal Issue: Determining “Confusingly Similar Signs”
One of the central legal issues in this case concerns the criteria for determining confusing similarity in trademark disputes.
Under the Law on Intellectual Property of Vietnam, a sign may constitute trademark infringement when:
- it is identical or confusingly similar to a protected trademark, and
- it is used for identical or similar goods or services.
The likelihood of confusion is typically assessed based on several factors:
- Structure and presentation of the signs. This involves examining similarities in letters and wording, pronunciation, overall structure and layout, and dominant elements of the sign. In many cases, the addition of a secondary element (for example, the word “VIỆT”) may not eliminate the likelihood of confusion if the main component of the sign remains identical or highly similar to the protected trademark.
- Overall commercial impression. Legal practice generally assesses the overall impression created by the sign from the perspective of the average consumer, rather than analyzing each component separately. Therefore, if a new sign still leads consumers to associate it with the original trademark, the likelihood of confusion may still be established.
- Distinctiveness and reputation of the trademark. For trademarks that have been widely used and recognized in the marketplace, the scope of protection may be interpreted more broadly. In this case, the element “Nhựa Bình Minh” has been strongly recognized in Vietnam’s plastic materials industry. As a result, the use of signs containing this element may increase the risk of confusion among consumers.
5. The Role of Intellectual Property Assessment in Litigation
The case also highlights the important role of intellectual property assessment in judicial proceedings. Because of the highly technical nature of trademark disputes, courts often rely on expert opinions and technical assessments when evaluating similarity between signs, likelihood of confusion in the marketplace, and the scope of trademark protection.
Although courts are not strictly bound by expert conclusions, procedural principles require courts to fully consider the contents of the expert opinion and provide clear reasoning if they accept or reject such conclusions. Ignoring or inadequately evaluating expert opinions may lead to a violation of the principle of objective and comprehensive assessment of evidence.
6. Implications for Intellectual Property Enforcement in Vietnam
The cassation protest in the “Binh Minh Plastics” dispute may have significant implications for intellectual property practice in Vietnam. First, the case underscores the importance of properly evaluating technical evidence in intellectual property disputes. Second, it contributes to clarifying the criteria for determining confusing similarity, which remains one of the most complex and frequently debated issues in trademark litigation. Third, the protest reflects the supervisory role of the Supreme People’s Procuracy in ensuring the correct and consistent application of law within the judicial system.
For businesses, the case also serves as a reminder of the importance of developing a robust brand protection strategy, monitoring the use of similar signs in the marketplace, and utilizing legal mechanisms to effectively enforce intellectual property rights.
______________________
Should you have any inquiries, please do not hesitate to contact us.
𝟏𝟗𝟖𝟗 𝐋𝐀𝐖
Website: 1989law.vn
Hotline: (+84) 945.45.45.11
Address: 18th Floor, The Nexus Building, 3A – 3B Ton Duc Thang Street, Saigon Ward, Ho Chi Minh City 700000, Vietnam