Apolat Legal

Based on definitions in the Law on Competition and the Paris Convention for the Protection of Industrial Property 1967, unfair competition refers to acts that violate honest and ethical standards in commercial relations, primarily causing damage to enterprises. This update discusses these definitions.

1. Definition of unfair competition 

The Intellectual Property Law 2005, as amended and supplemented in 2009, 2019, and 2022 (hereinafter referred to as the “IP Law”), does not define what constitutes unfair competition with respect to industrial property rights. The Paris Convention for the Protection of Industrial Property 1967 stipulates that any act contrary to honest practices in industrial or commercial matters constitutes an act of unfair competition. The Competition Law 2018 defines unfair competition as acts by an enterprise that contravene the principles of good faith, honesty, commercial practices, and other business standards, causing or likely to cause damage to the legitimate rights and interests of other enterprises. Based on these definitions, unfair competition, in essence, refers to acts that violate honest and ethical standards in commercial relations, primarily causing damage to enterprises. 

2. Distinction between the concept of unfair competition under the competition law and the intellectual property law 

Although both competition law and intellectual property law regulate unfair competition, the concept of unfair competition under these two legal frameworks possesses distinct legal characteristics. 

Intellectual property law protects the exclusive rights to use and exploit protected creative products, incentivizing enterprises to innovate and enabling consumers to access new products. In contrast, competition law establishes a fair competitive environment, preventing acts or agreements that restrict competition and negatively impact other enterprises or consumers. Generally, the effects of unfair competition under both laws are similar; however, the scope of unfair competition under the Competition Law is broader than that under the IP Law. Specifically, the objects protected by provisions on unfair competition under the IP Law are intellectual property rights that are legally protected, which is narrower than those under the Competition Law. The acts of unfair competition under competition law and intellectual property law are specified in the respective provisions as follows: 

Law on Competition 2018 

(Clause 1 Article 45 Law on Competition 2018) 

Law on Intellectual 2005, amended, supplement in 2009, 2020 to 2022 

(Clause 1 Article 130

Law on Intellectual Property) 

1. Trade secret infringement in the following forms: 

a) Assessing and acquiring trade secrets by going against security measures of the owner of such trade secrets; 

b) Disclosing or using trade secrets without consent of the owner. 

2. Forcing customers or business partners of other enterprises through threatening or coercion so that they do not enter in transaction or stop transaction with such enterprises. 

3. Discrediting competitors through directly or indirectly providing untruthful information about such competitors which negatively impacts their goodwill, financial status or business operation. 

4. Disrupting competitors’ business through directly or indirectly interrupting or disrupting their legitimate business operation. 

5. Illegally luring customers through: 

a) Providing false or misleading information to customers about the enterprise or products, services, sale promotion programs, transaction conditions related to the products or services provided by the enterprise to attract customers of competitors; 

b) Comparing products, services of the enterprise with those of the same kinds of competitors without evidence to prove the comparison. 

6. Sale of goods and services below cost that drives or probably drives competitors out of the market. 

7. Other prohibited unfair competition practices prescribed in other laws. 

a) Using commercial indications that cause confusion regarding the business entity, business activities, or commercial origin of goods or services; 

b) Using commercial indications that cause confusion regarding the origin, production method, features, quality, quantity, or other characteristics of goods or services, or regarding the conditions for providing goods or services; 

c) Using a trademark protected in a country that is a member of an international treaty, which prohibits the representative or agent of the trademark owner from using such trademark and of which the Socialist Republic of Vietnam is also a member, if the user is the representative or agent of the trademark owner and such use is without the owner’s consent and lacks justifiable reasons; 

d) Appropriating or using a domain name identical or confusingly similar to another person’s protected trademark, trade name, or geographical indication, without having the right to use it, with bad faith to exploit the reputation or goodwill of the corresponding trademark, trade name, or geographical indication for illicit profit. 

 

Clause 7, Article 45 of the Competition Law 2018 provides an open provision, stating that “other unfair competition acts prohibited under other legal provisions” are also covered. Concurrently, Clause 2, Article 4 of the Competition Law 2018 regulates the application of laws in case of discrepancies between legal provisions: “In cases where other laws provide regulations on restrictive competition practices, forms of economic concentration, unfair competition acts, and the handling of unfair competition acts that differ from the provisions of this Law, the provisions of those laws shall apply.” 

Based on these two provisions, can it be asserted that when there is a discrepancy in legal provisions regarding unfair competition in the field of intellectual property, the IP Law will automatically apply? According to Clause 4, Article 58 of the Law on Promulgation of Legal Normative Documents 2015: “In cases where legal normative documents issued by the same authority contain different provisions on the same issue, the provisions of the legal normative document issued later shall apply.” The Competition Law was enacted and took effect on July 1, 2019, after the effective date of the IP Law (July 1, 2006). Under this principle, the Competition Law would take precedence. However, Vietnamese law also applies the principle of “prioritizing specialized law over general law.” Considering Clause 2, Article 4 of the Competition Law 2018, the provisions of specialized law shall take precedence in case of discrepancies. Therefore, the IP Law is prioritized for application to unfair competition acts related to industrial property objects. 

Author: NGUYEN PHAN NGOC NHI

 

Please Login or Register for Free now to view all updates and articles

In addition to free-to-view updates and articles, you can also subscribe to the full Legal Centrix Vietnam Service including access to:

  • Overview notes on the law
  • Thousands of high quality translations of legislation covering all key business areas
  • Legal and tax updates
  • Articles on important legal and tax issues
  • Weekly email alerts
  • Sophisticated web platform and search

Legal Centrix is trusted by top law and accounting firms.

Apolat Legal

Established in 2014, Apolat Legal is a licensed law firm providing a board range of legal services in multiple practice areas for domestic and international clients. The firm commits resolving legal issues regarding businesses thoroughly and in the most beneficial way for various clients in Vietnam.

Apolat Legal is also honored to receive numerous recognitions and/or articles posted by world-leading and local organizations and publications including: The Law Association for Asia and the Pacific (LawAsia, 1966), The Legal500, IP Link, AIPPI, IP Coster, Lexology, Global Trade Review (GTR), The Saigon Times, etc.

Apolat Legal lawyers have long been recognized for their legal expertise and paid attention to their dedication in work as well as the capacity to take advantages from their relationship to maximize the interests of clients. The lawyers will be grouped into specialized teams, directly participate in each case to provide advices and close support to customers, thereby quickly completing the assigned work in the most effective way.

APOLAT LEGAL’s reputation and the quality of its services are reflected by its clients. We are serving nearly 1,000 clients both local and foreign clients. Some past and current long-term clients which the firm worked with such as: LG Electronics, Coastal Living Land Joint Stock Company, Wall Street English, Hochiki Asia Pacific Pte.Ltd, Asus Technology (Vietnam) Company Limited, AEON Mall Vietnam, Baskin Robbin, Citigym, Woori Bank Vietnam Limited, Central Group, CJ Gemadept Logistics Holdings Company Limited, K Group Company Limited, Digiworld Corp., Yellow Cab Pizza, Bamboo Capital Joint Stock Company, Sinobright Pharma Co. Limited, Mayekawa, Sky Music Jsc, Oxalis Holiday Company Limited, PGT Holdings, Vinacapital, Capitaland, Donghyup,...

Click here to view the author's profile

Author

Tags

  • Vietnam
  • Competition
  • Legal Updates
  • General Intellectual Property
  • Competition & Anti-Trust

Related Content

Recent updates

Cookies On
Our Website
We use cookies on our website. To learn more about cookies, how we use them on our site and how to change your cookie settings please click here to view our cookie policy. By continuing to use this site without changing your settings you consent to our use of cookies in accordance with our cookie policy.