1. Overview of the Case
In the ongoing legal battle between Bình Minh Plastic Joint Stock Company (BMP) and Bình Minh Việt Plastic Joint Stock Company (BMV), the dispute centers on trademark infringement allegations by BMP. BMP, the holder of the trademark “BÌNH MINH”, argues that BMV’s use of the name “BÌNH MINH VIỆT” and similar product labeling confuses consumers and violates its intellectual property rights.
Previous Judgment
On April 25, 2025, the High People’s Court of Ho Chi Minh City delivered its final decision in the case, rejecting BMP’s appeal. This ruling followed a first-instance judgment, where the court also sided with BMV, asserting that there was insufficient evidence to prove consumer confusion between the two companies’ trademarks.
2. Key Points of the Appellate Judgment
Distinctiveness of the Trademarks
The court emphasized that while both companies use the phrase “Bình Minh,” they did so in distinctive ways. BMV’s logo includes additional geographical elements (“Việt”) and other unique design features that sufficiently distinguish it from BMP’s well-established brand.
This was a critical factor in the decision, as the court found that the public is unlikely to confuse the two brands due to these differences. The court considered the overall impression created by the products and their packaging, which were deemed different enough to avoid confusion.
Consumer Confusion
Despite the initial claims by BMP of consumer confusion, the court found no concrete evidence that consumers had mistaken products from the two companies for one another. This absence of direct evidence weakened BMP’s position, as the burden of proof for establishing consumer confusion lies with the plaintiff.
Role of Expert Assessments
The court also considered the expert assessments submitted by BMP, which suggested that BMV’s branding could cause confusion. However, the court held that expert assessments are advisory, meaning they are not binding on the court’s decision. The court gave greater weight to the overall evidence and legal arguments rather than relying solely on expert opinions.
Administrative Penalties
In addition to the trademark dispute, the Long An Market Management Department had previously imposed administrative sanctions on BMV. These sanctions were cited as evidence of BMV’s violation of certain business practices but were not deemed sufficient to support BMP’s claims of trademark infringement. The court found that administrative sanctions alone do not automatically equate to a violation of intellectual property law.
Final Decision
The appellate court confirmed the first-instance ruling, dismissing BMP’s appeal. It upheld the view that BMV’s branding does not infringe upon BMP’s trademark rights and that there was no likelihood of confusion that would mislead consumers. The court also highlighted the importance of clear and convincing evidence when asserting claims of trademark infringement, especially in cases involving well-established brands.
3. Legal Implications
Trademark Protection and Distinctiveness
This case underscores the importance of distinctiveness in trademark law. For a trademark to be protected, it must be unique enough to distinguish one company’s products from others. Adding elements like geographical names or logos can help create sufficient distinction between brands, preventing legal conflicts in the marketplace.
Evidence and Burden of Proof
The ruling also highlights the burden of proof in trademark disputes. Plaintiffs must present strong, concrete evidence of consumer confusion or harm to their brand in order to succeed in an infringement case. In this case, the absence of such evidence led to the dismissal of BMP’s claims.
Role of Administrative Sanctions
While administrative penalties can signal potential wrongdoing in business practices, they do not automatically confirm intellectual property infringement. This case exemplifies the distinction between administrative violations and civil trademark infringement, a key point for businesses to understand when navigating intellectual property law.
4. Legal Framework
- Vietnamese Intellectual Property Law (2005, amended 2009, 2019): Governs trademark registration, protection, and disputes.
- Civil Procedure Code of Vietnam (2015): Defines the rules for presenting evidence and the burden of proof in civil cases.
- Vietnamese Market Management Law (2013): Governs administrative penalties related to business activities.
5. Conclusion
The decision by the High People’s Court of Ho Chi Minh City in favor of Bình Minh Việt Plastic Joint Stock Company (BMV) highlights important aspects of trademark law, including the role of distinctiveness, evidence, and administrative penalties. This case demonstrates the complexities involved in proving trademark infringement and the importance of presenting clear evidence to support claims.
As this case progresses through the Vietnamese legal system, businesses and legal professionals alike will continue to follow the implications of this ruling on trademark disputes in the country.
6. References
- Tuổi Trẻ Online. “Tòa án: ‘Nhựa Bình Minh và Bình Minh Việt không gây nhầm lẫn cho người tiêu dùng’.” (Published on April 25, 2025). Link to original article
- Vietnamese Intellectual Property Law 2005 (amended 2009, 2019, 2022).
- Civil Procedure Code of Vietnam 2015.
- Administrative penalty records from Long An Province Market Management Department (cited in court proceedings).