Vietthink Law Firm

At the seminar to announce the Report “Flow of business law in Vietnam 2024 and the Assessment Report on standards and technical regulations” of Vietnam Chamber of Commerce and Industry (VCCI) on April 22, 2025 LLM., Lawyer Nguyen Thanh Ha Vice Director – Vietthink Law Firm & IP Agent Vietnam aims to attract investment in waste-to-energy (WTE) projects to simultaneously solve urgent issues in environmental protection, combat climate change, promote sustainable development and enhance the circular economy [1], in which it is necessary to improve management efficiency,  urban waste treatment in the direction of promoting new technologies to replace outdated and adversely affecting incineration and landfill technologies, promoting energy regeneration and recycled products and fuels [2],[3]. For developing countries, shifting public investment towards private-sector participation presents an opportunity to leverage technological expertise, financial resources, and international experience in waste-to-energy project development. However, in Vietnam, investment attraction in this sector remains largely ineffective due to unresolved legal barriers. These obstacles stem from overlapping regulations, systemic inadequacies, and the absence of detailed legal guidance on bidding, environmental compliance, and related processes. Even in somes provinces where the National Assembly has approved specialized mechanisms to facilitate such investments, the effectiveness has been limited, and the framework has not been widely replicable across other regions [4],[5]. Since 2018, the expert team of Vietthink Law Firm has provided legal advisory services for numerous municipal solid waste (MSW) treatment projects (WTE projects) in Vietnam. Through this experience, it has become evident that most WTE projects face significant “deadlocks” affecting both investors and local authorities. These challenges hinder project implementation, resulting in delays and the failure to meet expected investment progress [6]. Drawing from practical consulting experience, as well as policy and legal research in the WTE sector, this research summarizes key legal barriers and proposes solutions to eliminate obstacles. The objective is to enhance investment effectiveness and accelerate the development of WTE projects in Vietnam. Legal barriers restraining investors and challenging local authorities Regulations on bidding for investor selection and bidding for procurement of MSW treatment facilities In accordance with the provisions of the Law on Investment 2020 and the Law on Bidding 2023, guided by Decree No. 23/2024/ND-CP dated February 27, 2024, an investment project on the construction of MSW plant is subject to the bidding of investor selection. Furthermore, pursuant to Article 78 of the Law on Environmental Protection 2020 (Law on Environmental Protection), the selection of MSW treatment facilities must be conducted by the provincial-level People’s Committee through bidding process in accordance with the law on bidding, and selection in the form of ordering and task assignment is permissible only when selection through bidding is not feasible. Under the above provisions, the investor of a new investment MSW treatment plant project must undergo two bidding procedures: (i) Bidding for investor selection to implement the project in accordance with the law on investment,  bidding and specialized laws; and (ii) Bidding for selection of MSW treatment facilities in accordance with the law on bidding and regulations on ordering public non-business services funded by the State budget. However, practical application of Article 78 of the Law on Environmental Protection reveals the following shortcomings: First, many local authorities struggle to distinguish these two bidding procedures: Bidding for investor selection to implement land-use projects is typically applied to newly invested WTE projects or those under the public-private partnership (PPP) model. However, it does not apply to existing projects that undergo technological conversion (e.g., transitioning from traditional incineration and landfill methods to incineration with power generation). The investor selection bidding process is conducted once for the entire project implementation period and must be completed before the investor begins project execution and investment. In contrast, bidding for the selection of MSW treatment facilities is a procedure for identifying establishments that provide public non-business services funded by the State budget. This process is organized annually or periodically in accordance with budget management regulations. Generally, investors are only eligible to participate in bidding for the selection of MSW treatment facilities once they have completed the investment and construction of the plant. In consulting practice, our expert team has observed inconsistent understandings and views on the aforementioned regulations in certain localities. This has resulted in local management agencies offering conflicting opinions and guidance to investors regarding procedures and requirements for project implementation and provision of MSW treatment at the provincial level. Second, Article 78 of the Law on Environmental Protection outlines general regulations for bidding in the selection of MSW treatment facilities. However, it lacks specific provisions for power generation MSW treatment projects (WTE project), failing to account for the distinct characteristics of these projects compared to conventional MSW treatment projects. WTE projects utilize modern technology and require substantial investment, necessitating a commitment or guarantee regarding project inputs. Specifically, the input MSW for these projects is managed by the State, not under the autonomy of the investor. The stability and sufficiency of input waste volume throughout the project’s term are essential to ensuring its output and financial viability. Key revenue streams include electricity sales, fuel, recycled products derived from waste, and income from MSW treatment services. Consequently, the requirement for investors to dedicate significant capital and resources to a project while simultaneously participating in annual bidding processes for the selection of MSW treatment facilities poses substantial financial risks. A key prerequisite for investors to commit capital and for banks and credit institutions to finance the project is the assurance from local management agencies regarding a stable supply of input waste. However, under the provisions of Article 78 of the Law on Environmental Protection, local Authorities are restricted from making commitments to guarantee input waste supply or from deciding to order long-term MSW treatment services for investors. Some localities, such as Da Nang City and Ho Chi Minh City, have implemented specific mechanisms for ordering MSW treatment services for projects involving technological conversion with energy recovery. Nevertheless, these mechanisms remain limited in scope, have not been fully institutionalized, and are not uniformly applicable across other localities nationwide. As a result, since the Law on Environmental Protection 2020 took effect, nearly all WTE projects have stagnated, unable to progress due to the lack of viable solutions to overcome these regulatory obstacles faced by both investors and local authorities. Third, in terms of purpose, bidding for investor selection in MSW treatment projects and bidding for the selection of MSW treatment facilities are intended to uphold competitiveness, fairness, transparency, and economic efficiency in MSW investment and treatment. However, the rigid application of Article 78 of the Law on Environmental Protection creates contradictions and overlaps with planning, investment, and waste management regulations. Specifically, for both new investment projects and technology transformation projects, when assessing and approving an investor’s implementation of a project, the competent Authorities have already evaluated its alignment with various planning frameworks, including the local general plan and the MSW management plan. Pursuant to the Law on Planning and the Law on Environmental Protection, MSW treatment areas and WTE projects are incorporated into provincial planning or inter-regional and inter-provincial waste management planning. Therefore, in principle, competent Authorities have already allocated and determined the volume of input waste assigned to each solid waste treatment area within the planning framework before granting investment approval. As a result, organizing bidding for MSW treatment services in areas that have already been designated within the planning framework may no longer be necessary to ensure competition, fairness, and transparency. Fourth, regarding the need for bidding to ensure economic efficiency and competitiveness in solid waste treatment service pricing, we believe that these objectives can still be achieved through mechanisms and principles governing price adjustments and service quality regulations, in accordance with the Law on the State Budget and its guiding documents. Moreover, our consulting experience indicates that many localities remain concerned about the need to conduct bidding to ensure competitive pricing, often by comparing outdated MSW treatment technology costs with those of modern WTE technologies. We find these concerns to be misplaced, as the inevitable increase in costs associated with adopting new technologies is a necessary step toward achieving the broader goal of gradually phasing out (and ultimately eliminating) MSW treatment plants relying on outdated technologies. The transition to modern technologies aligns with strategic objectives related to environmental protection, climate change mitigation, and the advancement of a circular economy ranging from the national level to regional, inter-regional, and provincial levels. Lack of regulations and mechanisms enabling competent Authorities to commit to the volume of input waste for WTE projects As analyzed above, MSW treatment services fall under public non-business services funded by the State budget. As a result, competent Authorities cannot commit to ensuring the supply of input waste for the entire project implementation period without first conducting a bidding process, due to the absence of a specific mechanism or any legal document providing clear guidance on this matter. Although local Authorities recognize the legitimate needs of investors and the distinct characteristics of waste-to-energy projects compared to conventional MSW treatment projects, Article 78 of the Law on Environmental Protection and its guiding documents fail to specify what constitutes “impossible cases for selection through bidding” to justify applying the ordering mechanism as prescribed. Meanwhile, when evaluating the conditions for applying the ordering mechanism under Clause 2, Article 12 of Decree No. 32/2019/ND-CP dated April 10, 2019 - which governs the assignment of tasks, ordering, or bidding for the provision of public products and services using State budget funds from recurrent expenditures - two of the three conditions are challenging to fulfill before an investor completes the construction of the facility. These include: (i) demonstrating specificity related to intellectual property or proving that only one supplier has registered to provide the service; and (ii) requiring economic and technical norms, unit prices, and pricing for public non-business services to be issued by competent authorities as a basis for placing orders. In order to support investors but still ensure that there is a basis to apply the form of ordering MSW treatment services for WTE plants, some localities also consider organizing bidding to have a basis to prove the case of “only one supplier registering to implement” according to Clause 2, Article 12 of Decree No. 32/2019/ND-CP or in cases where it is impossible organize bidding according to Article 78 of the Law on Environmental Protection. However, after that, local management agencies also faced difficulties in developing the conditions and criteria of the bidding package because there were no detailed guidelines for bidding for the selection of MSW treatment facilities for waste-to-energy projects, and there were no economic-technical norms and unit prices and public service prices are promulgated [7]. If approached in the above way, then even if the bidding is successfully organized, the order cannot be carried out for the entire operation time of the project. The Investor may propose various forms of guarantee regarding the volume of input waste to the local management agency, including: (i) A long-term contract between the Authority and the Investor, stipulating the volume of waste that the locality will provide to the Plant throughout the project implementation period. This volume is typically based on the Investment Policy Approval. The contract may also outline the unit price for solid waste treatment services, temporarily calculated according to the pricing principles set forth in Circular No. 02/2022/TT-BTNMT dated January 10, 2022, issued by the Ministry of Natural Resources and Environment. Additionally, the contract should define the rights and obligations of the parties at each stage of project implementation; (ii) An administrative document or decision issued by the Authority, committing to provide a sufficient volume of input waste for the entire project duration and specifying the temporarily calculated unit price for MSW treatment services. From the perspective of credit institutions and banks providing capital, a long-term contract between the Authority and the Investor offers a stronger legal basis for financial appraisal and mitigates risks associated with policy changes compared to administrative documents. However, as previously analyzed, both methods face challenges. Local management agencies struggle to find legal documents detailing these provisions and lack standardized long-term contract templates issued by specialized ministries. Consequently, localities remain hesitant to implement these approaches. Some may refer to long-term contracts previously signed between Investors and other localities, such as Hanoi City and Phu Tho Province, as potential models. Proposed Solutions to Address Legal Barriers and Enhance Investment Efficiency in Waste-to-Energy Projects in Vietnam Based on practical experience in providing investment consulting for waste-to-energy projects in Vietnam and in-depth research into relevant policies and legal regulations in this field, we propose several solutions to eliminate legal barriers and enhance the investment efficiency of WTE projects in Vietnam: First, it is necessary to introduce specific mechanisms and normative documents permitting the application of the ordering mechanism for MSW treatment services for WTE projects. To ensure transparency and economic efficiency in the selection and payment of MSW treatment services in accordance with budget management regulations, detailed conditions could be added regarding the application of the ordering mechanism, the timing and duration of orders, and principles for price adjustments, specifically tailored for WTE projects. Second, there should be specific mechanisms and normative documents outlining the forms through which local management agencies can commit to providing the volume of input waste for WTE projects that have been approved in alignment with relevant planning frameworks and MSW management plans. Consideration could be given to issuing a model contract for MSW treatment services with power generation, specifically applicable to WTE projects. Third, it is essential to review and refine waste management planning at the provincial, regional, and inter-regional levels to ensure the appropriate allocation of waste treatment facilities and the streamlined flow of waste collection, transportation, and treatment to centralized facilities. If WTE projects and centralized MSW treatment facilities are appropriately allocated within provincial, regional, inter-regional, and local waste management plans, the obstacles related to ensuring the volume of input waste for waste-to-energy projects can be resolved. Fourth, there is an urgent need to issue detailed guiding regulations and model contracts for waste-to-energy projects, particularly those aimed at attracting and selecting investors under the public-private partnership (PPP) model. List of References Central Committee (2022). Resolution No. 24-NQ/TW of the Politburo on Socio-Economic Development and Ensuring National Defense and Security in the Southeast Region until 2030, with a Vision to 2045. Prime Minister (2021). Decision No. 1658/QD-TTg Approving the National Green Growth Strategy for 2021–2030, with a Vision to 2050. Prime Minister (2022). Decision No. 896/QD-TTg Approving the National Climate Change Strategy until 2050. National Assembly of the Socialist Republic of Vietnam (2024). Resolution No. 136/2024/QH15 on Urban Governance and Pilot Implementation of Specific Mechanisms and Policies for the Development of Da Nang City. National Assembly of the Socialist Republic of Vietnam (2023). Resolution No. 98/2023/QH15 on Pilot Implementation of Specific Mechanisms and Policies for the Development of Ho Chi Minh City. Dau Anh Tuan, Pham Ngoc Thach, Pham Van Hung (2024). Investment Procedures for Waste-to-Energy Plants: Barriers and Solutions, Report, Vietnam Chamber of Commerce and Industry (VCCI). Pham Thieu (2025). Challenges in Determining Unit Pricing for Domestic Waste Treatment in Ninh Binh. Agriculture & Environment Newspaper, https://nongnghiepmoitruong.vn/vuong-mac-trong-xac-dinh-don-gia-xu-ly-rac-sinh-hoat-o-ninh-binh-d747118.html, accessed: April 21, 2025. Linh Dan (2025). Da Nang Proposes Canceling Investment Policy for 1,000-Ton/Day Waste Treatment Plant Project. Investment Newspaper Online, https://baodautu.vn/da-nang-de-xuat-bo-chu-truong-dau-tu-du-an-nha-may-xu-ly-rac-1000-tanngay-d247025.html, accessed: April 21, 2025. Tam An (2025). Waste-to-Energy Faces Mounting Challenges, with Projects Taking 5–8 Years to Complete. Vietnamnet, https://vietnamnet.vn/dien-rac-gap-kho-chong-chat-mot-du-an-mat-5-8-nam-moi-hoan-thanh-2387083.html, accessed: April 21, 2025. Tam An (2024). Waste-to-Energy Already Difficult, Made Harder by Electricity Price Negotiations. Vietnamnet, https://vietnamnet.vn/dien-rac-da-kho-cang-kho-them-neu-phai-dam-phan-gia-dien-2241653.html, accessed: April 21, 2025.  

Abstract: In 2024, Vietnam ranked 5th globally in terms of interest in digital assets and 3rd in the world for using international trading platforms. Currently, 17 million Vietnamese individuals own digital assets, with the total market value exceeding 100 billion USD. Informal digital asset trading is fueling a vast underground economy, but Vietnam still lacks an official legal framework for cryptocurrency and digital assets. According to Directive No. 05/CT-TTg dated March 1, 2025, the Ministry of Finance and the State Bank are tasked with proposing a legal framework for managing and promoting digital assets and cryptocurrency by March 2025. Both State management agencies and investors are seeking a robust legal framework for cryptocurrency in Vietnam. This article reviews regulations from leading countries to guide the development of cryptocurrency and digital asset laws in Vietnam. Concepts and legal nature of cryptocurrency The world is witnessing a significant rise in cryptocurrency. Many countries worldwide have quickly embraced this trend and made notable progress in building regulatory frameworks, testing technologies, and developing related applications. The demand for cryptocurrency trading has also surged. According to data from the analytics and aggregation firm - CoinGecko, the total market value of cryptocurrencies reached a high of nearly $3.2 billion on November 14, 2024, in Asia. According to the second annual “Henley Crypto Adoption Index”, Singapore ranks as the top crypto hub with a score of 45.7 out of 60, thanks to its competitive advantages in areas such as technological innovation, legal frameworks, and infrastructure development. Hong Kong ranks second, followed by the United Arab Emirates. Major countries, including the US, have also launched aggressive support policies to welcome a new wave of cryptocurrency investment. In 2024, Vietnam ranked 5th globally in terms of interest in digital assets and 3rd globally in terms of the use of international trading platforms. Currently, 17 million Vietnamese people own digital assets, with the total market value exceeding 100 billion USD. Informal digital asset trading is fueling a vast underground economy, but Vietnam still lacks an official legal framework for cryptocurrency and digital assets [1]. The cryptocurrency trading market is becoming increasingly dynamic, underscoring the urgent need to develop a regulatory framework for this type of “asset”. In addition to Bitcoin (BTC), the first major cryptocurrency to appear on the market in 2009, which has been approved by the US Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) for ETF trading (a type of investment fund traded on a stock exchange that directly invests in Bitcoin), many other cryptocurrencies have emerged and gained significant popularity, such as Ethereum (ETH), Tether (USDT), XRP, and DigiByte (DGB), etc., [2] The terms “cryptocurrency”, “digital currency”, and “virtual currency” are often used interchangeably and are commonly understood to have similar connotations: - “Digital currency” or cryptocurrency is broadly defined by organizations to include coins, cryptocurrencies, and digital money (electronic money, electronic currency, cyber cash). Digital currency typically has two sources of issuance: from the central bank and/or the private sector, including businesses and individuals. For digital currencies issued by private entities, such as BTC, ETH, and GDB, the payment or transfer of digital funds is verified by independent, unknown third parties, without relying on a central authority or registration [3]. - The concept of “virtual currency” is defined by the Financial Action Task Force (FATF) as a digital representation of value that can be traded electronically and serves as a method of exchange, a unit of account, and/or a means of storing value, but is not recognized as having legal tender status. Virtual currency is not issued or guaranteed by any country or territory and only fulfills the functions mentioned above based on the agreement within the virtual currency user community [4]. The International Monetary Fund (IMF) defines “virtual currency” as a digital representation of value, issued by a private developer and listed in its own unit. It can be seized, stored, accessed, and traded online, and can be used for various purposes as long as the parties involved in the transaction agree to its use [5]. - Electronic money (e-money) is a concept officially defined in numerous legal documents across various countries and international financial and monetary institutions. According to the official website of the European Commission (EC), e-money is “a digital alternative to cash. It allows users to make cashless payments with money stored on a card or a phone, or over the Internet” [6]. - According to the World Bank, e-money is defined as a “store of value” in the digital form of a currency, which can be exchanged at face value upon request and accepted as a means of payment [7]. The European Central Bank (ECB) provides a similar description of e-money as “monetary value on a technical that may be widely used for making payments to entities other than the e-money issuer” [8]. - In Vietnam, the concept of “electronic money” was first introduced in the Decree 52/2024/ND-CP, dated May 15, 2024 issued by the Government regulating non-cash payments (“Decree 52”). The decree defines electronic money as “the value of Vietnamese currency on technical devices provided on a reciprocal basis corresponding to the amount prepaid by customers to banks, foreign bank branches, or payment intermediary service providers offering e-wallet services”. From this definition, it is clear that Vietnam acknowledges certain basic characteristics of e-money, such as: (i) being stored on technical devices, and (ii) being accepted by entities other than the issuer. Specifically, according to Article 3 of Decree 52, e-money is not considered to have the same value as cash, is not an alternative for cash, and are not recognized as a non-cash means of payment. Currently, Vietnam only recognizes non-cash payment instruments, including checks, payment orders, payment authorizations, collection receipts, collection authorizations, bank cards (including debit cards, credit cards, and prepaid cards), e-wallets, and other means of payment as regulated by the State Bank. According to the State Bank of Vietnam [9], from the perspective of virtual assets and commodities, cryptocurrency or virtual currency can be considered a type of asset. However, they have not been specifically defined in the Civil Code, and there are no regulations governing virtual assets (including virtual currency as a type of virtual asset). From a monetary perspective, most countries do not accept virtual currency as legal tender or means of payment. This is due to concerns about national sovereignty over currency issuance, which could be infringed upon, affecting the efficiency of monetary policy management. Additionally, virtual currency, being outside the scope of Central Banks regulations, may facilitate tax evasion, illegal money transfers, and financing of illegal activities. Legal regulations on Cryptocurrency governance in Vietnam and selected countries worldwide The existence and legality of cryptocurrency remain controversial worldwide, with jurisdictions adopting varying regulatory approaches. Broadly, countries can be classified into three categories: (i) those adopting a neutral stance, neither endorsing nor expressly prohibiting cryptocurrency transactions; (ii) those outright rejecting cryptocurrency by declaring its use and exchange unlawful; and (iii) those imposing an absolute prohibition, refusing to recognize cryptocurrency as legal tender to safeguard national monetary sovereignty [10]. Certain jurisdictions have recognized the existence of cryptocurrency and have enacted legislative and regulatory measures to oversee their uses. In this regard, the legal frameworks governing cryptocurrency, which have attracted significant regulatory scrutiny at both national and supranational levels, primarily address the following key aspects: Regulations on subjects/organizations issuing cryptocurrency and issuance conditions; Regulations on risk governance for issuing organizations; Regulations on anti-money laundering and the prevention of illegal transactions; Regulations on consumer protection. One of the most complete and comprehensive acts currently regulating the legal framework for cryptocurrencies is Markets in Crypto-Assets (MiCA) Regulation, adopted by the European Parliament (EP) and the Council of the European Union (EUC) [11]. The key provisions of MiCA have been aggregated by the authors as follows: (i) Regarding the subjects/organizations issuing cryptocurrency and issuance conditions. The first European Union (EU) Act on Cryptocurrency - MiCA has come into full effect since December 2024. Accordingly, issuers,  providers of crypto assets to third parties may be subject to certain obligations such as having a prospectus as prescribed when offering publicly; must having cryptocurrency issuance rights from the competent regulatory authorities; complying with the rules for marketing cryptocurrency to the public (Article 9. Publication of the crypto-asset white paper and the marketing communications, Article 12. Modification of published crypto-asset white papers and the marketing communications). (ii) Regarding the risk governance for issuing organizations: The regulations stipulate that organizations issuing cryptocurrency are not allowed to mobilize or receive deposits. They must implement measures to ensure the performance of their obligations, such as using escrow accounts or bank guarantees. These regulations also aim to support policies that protect the rights of cryptocurrency investors. (iii) Regarding the anti-money laundering and the prevention of illegal transactions: Under MiCA, activities related to crypto-assets will be monitored in the same manner as traditional money transfers to prevent suspicious transactions, combat market manipulation and address financial crimes. Detailed information regarding the origin of assets and beneficiaries will be retained within transactions and MiCA will regulate transactions exceeding €1,000 involving electronic wallets when transacting with other electronic wallets managed by crypto-asset service providers. Furthermore, MiCA imposes an obligation on crypto-asset service providers to detect and prevent illegal crypto-asset flows, and ensures that all crypto-asset companies comply with anti-money laundering obligations under MiCA and EU Directive 2015/849 on anti-money laundering (specifically the provisions of Chapter 1 Section 5 on the authorization of crypto-asset service providers). (iv) Regarding the protection of consumer/investor rights: Regulations on the protection of investor rights are outlined in policies on the governance of cryptocurrency issuers and cryptocurrency supply chains. According to MiCA, the European Union implements policies to manage and supervise services such as custody, management or investment advice of crypto- assets, etc.. Cryptocurrency service providers may hold legal responsible for damages arising from cyber attacks or system glitches. Platforms are required to inform users about the risks associated with public offerings. The European Securities and Markets Authority (ESMA) has authority to intervene and ban or restrict cryptocurrency platforms if they fail to protect investor rights (specifically Article 4. Publish information to the public), Article 68. Governance arrangements). Beside the EU, the US, as a global financial hub, also has a keen interest in cryptocurrency governance policies. The US is considered to still have a highly cautious approach toward this new financial instrument. In mid-2024, the U.S. House of Representatives passed a cryptocurrency bill titled the “Financial Innovation and Technology for the 21st Century Act (FIT21)” [12]. This bill not only provides protective mechanisms for the cryptocurrency industry, but also outlines the jurisdictional authority of “Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC)” and the “Commodity Futures Trading Commission (CFTC)”; however, this draft was not passed by the US Senate. Thus, the US continues to advocate for strict governance of cryptocurrency, as outlined by Executive Order No. 14067, signed by President Joe Biden on March 9, 2022, titled “Ensuring Responsible Development of Digital Assets”. This Order outlines 06 main tasks are set out, including protecting consumers, protecting national financial stability, and combating illegal financial activities. Switzerland is known as one of the leading countries in cryptocurrency and digital assets, which has a legal framework for activities related to digital assets and cryptocurrency, including regulations on taxes and customers protection. Activities related to digital assets and cryptocurrency are managed by the Swiss National Bank (SNB) and the Swiss Financial Market Supervisory Authority (FINMA). FINMA has issued regulations and standards for digital assets, and also allows companies operating in this field to register and operate in Switzerland. Singapore is also an attractive market and a preferred choice for many individual and institutional investors to access, establish, and conduct transactions related to cryptocurrencies and digital assets. This is due to the country’s open policies and legal framework for the access and regulation of activities related to digital assets. Activities involving digital assets and cryptocurrencies are supervised by the Monetary Authority of Singapore (MAS) and the Accounting and Corporate Regulatory Authority (ACRA).  In 2019, MAS introduced a new regulatory framework for activities related to digital assets, allowing companies operating in this sector to register and conduct business in Singapore [13]. Cryptocurrency is determined as a form of asset, with various policies in place to protect property rights. Additionally, the Singaporean government has incorporated virtual currencies into its anti-money laundering (AML) and counter-terrorism financing (CTF) regulations [14]. In Vietnam, Decree 52 is the first legislation to recognize the legality of e-money. Specifically, this Decree sets out a number of regulations related to e-money, including the definition of e-money (Article 3.12) and specific the forms of e-money used in payment activities, such as e-wallets and prepaid cards (Article 6). Entities authorized to provide e-money services include banks and foreign bank branches (offering e-wallet and prepaid card services), as well as organizations providing intermediary payment services (offering e-wallet services linked to customers’ payment accounts at banks). However, the approach taken in Decree 52 indicates that Vietnamese legislators have only recently recognized e-money as a form of non-physical cash storage, corresponding to the amount of money prepaid by customers to banks, foreign bank branches, and service providers. Consequently, under this regulation, commonly known cryptocurrencies such as Bitcoin and Ethereum do not qualify as e-money and remain prohibited for use as a means of payment in Vietnam [15]. This approach aligns with that of certain countries, including Russia, China, and India - jurisdictions that reject digital cryptocurrencies – in an effort to prevent digital assets from functioning as money or a method of exchange. This, in turn, helps mitigate potential impacts on money supply and demand while maintaining active control over monetary policy. It can be seen that the issuance of Decree 52 along with the overall concepts of e-money, has partly laid the groundwork for the recognition of digital products and financial technology in Vietnam. However, it still lacks an official and comprehensive legal framework for cryptocurrencies and digital assets. The absence of clear regulations defining the legal nature of cryptocurrencies, as well as detailed regulations governing the creation, trading, monitoring, and processing of transactions related to cryptocurrencies and digital assets has caused Vietnam to lag behind the global trend. At the same time, this lack of regulations has made it more difficult to manage, monitor, and ensure the safety of the financial market, banking, taxes, and anti-money laundering, etc. due to the inability to promptly manage, control, detect, and handle activities related to virtual currencies, and to overlook illegal acts involving their use. Following the Government’s strong directive, Vietnam is making significant efforts to develop and refine the legal framework for digital assets and cryptocurrencies [16]. Notably, the draft of Law on the Digital Technology Industry, which is gone through discussions by the National Assembly, introduces several regulations related to digital assets. Clause 1, Article 8 of the Draft Law defines digital assets as “digital technology products created, issued, stored, transferred, and authenticated by blockchain technology, over which individuals have ownership rights in accordance with civil law and relevant regulations” [17]. According to this definition, digital assets encompass products that are created, stored, transferred, and authenticated using blockchain technology. Nonetheless, this definition does not provide a clear legal basis for determining whether cryptocurrency qualifies as a digital asset. Instead, the classification of asset types and ownership rights is subject to regulations under civil law and other relevant legal provisions. Additionally, the definition fails to address key characteristics of digital assets, such as their intangibility and decentralization. As a result, when compared to the provisions of the 2015 Civil Code, it remains unclear whether cryptocurrency is considered as class of property or digital assets, or whether digital assets fall under the categories of objects, money, securities, property rights, or other asset types. The inclusion of multiple, inconsistent definitions across different legal regulations, without a unified approach to the legal status of cryptocurrencies and digital assets, creates further ambiguity and lacks of practical application. Thus, it can be seen that the draft of Law on Digital Technology Industry has implied the recognition of cryptocurrency, created by blockchain technology as a type of digital asset, but still leaves open the possibility for civil law and other specialized regulations to specify in detail the legal nature, creation, determination of ownership and rights related to cryptocurrency and digital assets. Meanwhile, the Civil Code and other documents have not addressed and clarified these issues. The lack of such detailed regulations  means that while cryptocurrency transactions still take place, they operate without a framework and tools to control, and without a mechanism to protect the rights and legitimate interests of investors, individuals and organizations participating in the market for trading cryptocurrency and digital assets. In 2023, Unidroit issued principles for defining digital assets, in which it defined digital assets as controllable electronic data, accordingly Unidroit issued principles for defining “electronic data”, “controllability” and the rights and obligations of entities involved in digital asset transactions [18]. This document could be served as a useful reference for Vietnam in its effort to build and refine the legal framework for digital assets and cryptocurrency. Vietnam has yet to established a comprehensive legal framework for cryptocurrency, and investors are advised to exercise caution and due diligence: Vietnam Investment reported on March 5, 2025: According to Chainalysis, in 2024, Vietnam ranked 5th globally in terms of interest in digital assets, 3rd worldwide in the use of international trading platforms, and 6th in transaction volume on decentralized platforms. Currently, 17 million Vietnamese citizens own digital assets, with the total market value exceeding USD 100 billion. The unregulated trading of digital assets has contributed to the formation of a massive underground economy. According to survey conducted by the National Cybersecurity Association, in 2024, one in every 220 users was a victim of online fraud, representing a rate of 0.45%. The total financial losses due to online fraud in 2024 were estimated at VND 18.9 trillion. Regarding cryptocurrency-related fraud, Chainalysis (a U.S.-based blockchain analytics company) initially estimated that wallets linked to fraudulent activities generated USD 9.9 billion in 2024, with projections suggesting this figure could reach a record high of USD 12.4 billion in 2025. Most of these scams originate from large-scale fraud centers in Southeast Asia and are exhibiting increasingly decentralized operational patterns.  Mr. Dang Minh Tuan, Chairman of the Vietnam Blockchain Union (VBU), stated that investing in cryptocurrency carries significant risks, as cryptocurrency in Vietnam currently lack legal recognition and regulatory oversight to prevent fraud and market manipulation. Consequently, cryptocurrency transactions are not legally protected. Investors are advised to thoroughly understand the technology, acquire proficiency in using digital wallets, and familiarize themselves with key cryptocurrency-related concepts. Massive investments in cryptocurrency and virtual currencies based on unverified information or crowd psychology can easily lead to significant risks for investors. While the law does not provide clear regulations on protecting investors in these transactions, incidents, problems, and disputes related to cryptocurrency and virtual currency transactions will be difficult to protect and resolve through legal means. Strategic recommendations for the development and enhancement of Vietnam’s cryptocurrency legal framework Vietnam can leverage international experience to refine its legal framework and policies on cryptocurrency in particular and digital assets in general. Currently, countries that recognize digital assets manage them through several measures, including: (1) tax policies; (2) Anti-Money Laundering (AML) and Counter-Financing of Terrorism (CFT) standards; (3) consumer protection policies; and (4) licensing regulations for Digital Asset Service Providers [19]. The authors propose the following recommendations: First, for the further development and refinement of detailed regulations on digital assets, cryptocurrency, and related transactions: It is essential to recognize them as a form of asset and to incorporate regulations on digital assets into the Civil Code and other relevant legal documents. Amid the rapid advancement of technology, the enumeration of digital assets cannot comprehensively cover all asset types, as digital currencies and assets will continue to emerge and evolve over time. Therefore, we advocate for defining digital assets based on their inherent characteristics, classifying them accordingly, and establishing ownership rights and transaction regulations for these assets, with reference to the 2023 Unidroit Principles. A clear determination of the legal nature of cryptocurrency and digital assets serves as the foundation for developing comprehensive policies and legal regulations on taxation for transactions involving these assets. Second, regarding anti-money laundering and counter-terrorism financing: The Financial Action Task Force (FATF) has issued recommendations to combat money laundering and terrorist financing in the virtual asset sector. These recommendations include requiring countries to implement Know Your Customer (KYC) measures and transaction monitoring [20]. In many countries, regulations mandate that virtual asset exchanges conduct user identity verification and monitor transactions to prevent money laundering and terrorist financing. Therefore, Vietnam should establish anti-money laundering and counter-terrorism financing regulations for virtual asset service providers, develop a system for monitoring suspicious transactions, and collaborate with international organizations to prevent cross-border money laundering activities. Third, regarding consumer protection: It is essential to establish regulations on security and safety measures, including: technical security requirements for equipment used in the issuance and storage of digital assets; regulations on the right to access payment history statements; dispute resolution procedures and competent authorities responsible for handling disputes; and enforcement measures. Additionally, penalties should be imposed for violations such as conducting money transfers and digital payment transactions for illegal activities Finally, regarding the licensing and regulation of digital asset service providers: In the US, digital asset exchanges are required to register with regulatory authorities such as the US Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) and the Commodity Futures Trading Commission (CFTC), while also complying with anti-money laundering (AML) and Know Your Customer (KYC) requirements. Similarly, South Korea and the Philippines mandate that exchanges obtain operating licenses, report suspicious transactions, and ensure the security of customer assets. Therefore, it is necessary to develop and institutionalize regulatory measures governing the operations of service providers and issuers of digital assets and cryptocurrencies. This should include a strong emphasis on establishing corporate responsibilities regarding the protection of customers' personal data and ensuring transparency in financial activities. Notably, a clear distinction must be made between customer assets and the entities’ assets.   LIST OF REFERENCES Business Forum Magazine (2025), Urgently build a legal framework for digital assets, https://diendandoanhnghiep.vn/gap-rut-xay-dung-khung-phap-ly-cho-tai-san-so-10150915.html., accessed: March 5, 2025. Bao moi (2025), What do you know about 10 powerful cryptocurrencies in the world?, https://baomoi.com/biet-gi-ve-10-dong-tien-dien-tu-quyen-luc-tren-the-gioi-c51574652.epi, accessed: March 5, 2025. Nguyen Thi Cat Tuong (2022), “Some legal proposals on digital currency”, Vietnam Journal of Industry, Competition and Trade, No. 14. FATF (2014), Virtual Currencies – Key Definitions and Potential AML/CFT Risks. Le Thi Kim Nhung, Nguyen Le Duc (2024), “Cryptocurrency Management in some countries – Experience and Some Policy Recommendations for Vietnam”, Baking Review, https://tapchinganhang.gov.vn/quan-li-tien-ma-hoa-o-mot-so-quoc-gia-kinh-nghiem-va-mot-so-khuyen-nghi-chinh-sach-doi-voi-viet-nam-11591.html, accessed: March 5, 2025. European Commission, https://finance.ec.europa.eu/consumer-finance-and-payments/payment-services/e-money_en#:~:text=Electronic%20money%20(e%2Dmoney),and%20secure%20e%2Dmoney%20services, accessed: March 5, 2025. World Bank, https://digitalfinance.worldbank.org/topics/financial-consumer-protection/e-money, accessed: March 4, 2025. European Central Bank, https://data.ecb.europa.eu/methodology/electronic-money#:~:text=Electronic%20money%20(e%2Dmoney),than%20the%20e%2Dmoney%20issue, accessed: March 5, 2025. National Institute for Economics and Finance (2017), Vietnam does not accept virtual currency as currency, https://mof.gov.vn/webcenter/portal/vclvcstc/pages_r/l/chi-tiet-tin?dDocName=MOFUCM110675, accessed: March 5, 2025. Pham Thi Thai Ha (2021), “Viewpoints of Bitcoin”, Review of Finance, 2nd edition June 2021, https://mof.gov.vn/webcenter/portal/vclvcstc/pages_r/l/chi-tiet-tin?dDocName=MOFUCM204677, accessed: March 5, 2025. European Securities and Markets Authority, https://www.esma.europa.eu/esmas-activities/digital-finance-and-innovation/markets-crypto-assets-regulation-mica, accessed: 05/3/2025. People’s Deputies Online (2024), US House of Representatives Passes Cryptocurrency Bill, Despite Mixed Opinions, https://daibieunhandan.vn/ha-vien-my-thong-qua-du-luat-ve-tien-dien-tu-bat-chap-nhung-y-kien-trai-chieu-post372642.html, accessed: March 5, 2025. Nguyen Doan Hung (2023), “Access to digital assets: A look at international experience”, Special edition of Banking Market Panorama 2023. Training Center for Elected Representatives, Overview of Singapore’s Cryptocurrency Laws, http://tailieu.quochoi.vn:8080/index.php/tai-lieu/chuyen-de-chuyen-sau/item/2948-t-ng-quan-phap-lu-t-v-ti-n-o-c-a-singapore, accessed: March 5, 2025. State Bank, Press release on Bitcoin and other similar cryptocurrencies, February 27, 2014. Directive No. 05/CT-TTg dated March 1, 2025, of the Prime Minister on key tasks and breakthrough solutions to promote economic growth and accelerate the disbursement of public investment capital, ensuring the national economic growth target for 2025 reaches 8% or higher. The draft of the Law on Digital Technology Industry was considered by the National Assembly at the 8th session agenda of the 15th National Assembly on November 23, 2024. Unidroit Principles on Digital Assets and Private Law (2023). Filling legal gaps, calculating tax collection options from digital assets, VnEconomy No. 35-2024 published on August 26, 2024, p.26-27. FATF, Guidance for a Risk-Based Approach to Virtual Assets and Virtual Asset Service Providers (VASPs), 2021. Authors: LLM., Lawyer, Nguyen Thanh Ha, Lawyer Hoang Thi Phuong Lan, Nguyen Thi Huong

Abstract: Since a trademark is protected in Vietnam, in accordance with current regulations, its validity will begin from the date of issuance of the Certificate of Trademark Registration until the end of ten years counted from the filing date of the application. The trademark owner can file renewal requests to keep validity with unlimited times, each for 10 years. However, during the time, is it necessary/compulsory to do anything with the trademark to keep it alive? Contents: Since a trademark is registered, the individual/legal entity recognized as the Applicant of the trademark application will be officially acknowledged as the Owner of that trademark. In other words, the trademark now officially becomes the property of the owner, and accordingly, the owner has the exclusive right to use and exploit the property of the trademark as well as take measures to protect the rights of the protected trademark. Certain trademark owners may believe that once a trademark is registered, ownership will never be lost, and that there is no need to actively use it, and as long as the trademark remains registered and is left unaltered, it will not be invalidated/canceled. Alternatively, there are cases where trademarks are registered for many goods/services outside the scope of the goods/services that the owners actually offer, with the aim of preventing any other individual/organization from using the identical/similar trademark as/similar as theirs, even for goods/services unrelated to theirs, or, in other words, to be simply set aside to be used against future competitors. On the other hand, some owners find that they are unable to register a trademark for the specific goods/services they actually offer, so they switch  to registering it for another goods/services, as long as the trademark is protected, and they are certain that this protection in any form is beneficial to their business and that the trademark cannot be invalidated/canceled. Based on such fact, under current regulations, do the ways of thinking work in protecting the rights of the trademark owners? According to Article 95 of the current Law on Intellectual Property[1], a Certificate of trademark registration can be completely or partially terminated in several circumstances, including the following typical cases: The trademark owner is no longer in business and has no legal successor: This is a case that has occurred a lot due to various subjective or objective reasons. For example, a trademark is protected under the name of Company A, however, following a period of insolvency, Company A had to cease its business activities and undergo dissolution procedures. This also means that if a third party's request for cancellation is filed with the Competent State Authority and the third party is successful in proving that Company A has dissolved without a legal successor, its trademark’s validity is likely to be canceled. In fact, there have been numerous instances of such cases, leading to the expiration of many trademarks.   The trademark has not been used by the owner or the person/organization authorized by the owner for a consecutive period of 05 years before the date of the request for cancellation, without a legitimate reason, except in cases where the use of the trademark was initiated or resumed at least three months before the date of the request for cancellation. This is likely the most common basis so far in requests for cancellation of trademark validity filed with the National Office of Intellectual Property of Vietnam. The request for cancellation is likely to be successful if the Applicant could provide grounds/evidences proving that the trademark has not been used for a consecutive five-year period from the date of granting protection, and if the owner of the trademark is impossible to prove the use of the mark by itself or by its subsidiary, affiliate companies, etc., the trademark is at high risk of being canceled its validity. Documents to prove the status of use/non-use by the owner are very diverse, as stipulated in Clause 5, Article 124 of the current Law on Intellectual Property[2], including but not limited to:   Affixing the protected trademark to goods/services that the owner produces/provides and registers; Circulating, advertising, displaying, transporting goods/services bearing the protected trademark; Commercial indications bearing the protected trademark for registered goods/services; Importing goods bearing the protected trademark. If the owner may provide any of the documents listed, even if including one or more advertisements featuring the trademark in newspapers/online media during the continuous period of 05 years, not compulsory by the owner directly, may be by a subsidiary, affiliate, or an authorized party to whom the owner has granted the right to use the trademark, then the document works for proving the use of the trademark. In such a case, the request for cancellation may be unsuccessful. Regarding the issue of proving/providing evidence of actual trademark use, while there are still some deficiencies and the fact that current regulations are somewhat lacking in detail and strictness, up to now, practice shows that as long as there is proof of use (including minimal evidence), the competent authority will consider the trademark to have been used and the request to cancel the validity in these cases is often considered to be unfounded. Based on the legal and practical grounds listed above, the trademark owner needs to pay special attention to the following matters after successfully protecting a trademark: Filing and registration the trademark which is identical to the actual use of the mark in practice. For the broadest of scope of protection, it is advisable to consider filing & registration the trademark in both its negative (black & white) & color forms as designed; Once the trademark has been registered, ensure continuous use of the trademark or risk losing it; When affixing the trademark to commercial indications, it is important to place the trademark in an easily visible position to ensure that its function is to distinguish the products/services of different individuals/organizations; Once the trademark is protected, the owner needs to pay attention to maintaining the use of the trademark, the simplest way is to include the trademark on sales invoices/service invoices. This is simple and can be considered a completely legitimate form of trademark use; In case the trademark owner is a company and the company may be terminated and go through dissolution procedures, if the decision is made to retain the validity of the trademark, the trademark transfer should be recorded before the company is officially dissolved. Not only in Vietnam but globally, the cancellation of the validity of a trademark based on the grounds of not being used continuously and actually used in practice for 03 (three) or 05 (five) consecutive years, applied depending on the regulations in each country, is also quite common, even for trademarks that can be considered well-known trademarks. A typical case in which McDonald’s lost its rights to the trademark “Big Mac” for the goods ‘chicken sandwiches’, ‘foods prepared from poultry products’ and ‘services rendered or associated with operating and franchising restaurants and other establishments or facilities engaged in providing food and drink prepared for consumption and for drive-through facilities; preparation of carry-out foods’ in Europe following the European Court of Justice’s judgment T58/23[3] on the grounds that it failed to provide sufficient documentation proving the genuine use of the trademark. The legal dispute began in 2015 when Supermac’s (Holdings) Ltd (Supermac’s) attempted to register its name as a trademark for restaurant services in Europe (EU). McDonald’s International Property Co. Ltd (McDonald’s) filed an opposition against Supermac’s application on the basis that the trademark was confusingly similar to the trademark “BIG MAC” which has been already protected in EU under registration number 62638[4]. However, on April 11, 2017, Supermac���s filed an application for revocation of the trademark “BIGMAC” in EU based on several grounds, including the ground that this trademark had not been genuinely used in EU for the registered goods/services. On January 11, 2019, the Cancellation Division held that the documentation provided by McDonald’s was insufficient to prove that the trademark “BIG MAC” had been genuinely used, so it issued a Decision agreeing with Supermac’s and accordingly, issued a Decision to revoke McDonald’s “BIG MAC” for all products/services as requested by Supermac’s in EU and the effective date of the revocation is April 11, 2017. On March 8, 2019, McDonald’s filed an appeal against the aforementioned Decision with the Board of Appeal and submitted a substantial amount of additional evidences, including consumer surveys (demonstrating knowledge of the BIG MAC sign), receipts and data from cash registers (showing sales figures), sworn screenshots of television advertisements and outdoor advertisements from advertising agencies (to prove circulation of advertising materials), screenshots of videos posted by third parties on YouTube, Google Analytics reports (demonstrating the number of viewers of McDonald’s website), and financial audit reports (demonstrating the number of BIG MAC-branded products sold). However, after reviewing the documents/evidences, the Board of Appeal partially upheld McDonald’s appeal. Specifically, the Board of Appeal decided to revoke the rights to the “BIG MAC” trademark in EU only for the following products and dismissed the appeal with regard to the remaining goods and services (Contested Decision): Class 29: Foods prepared from meat, pork, fish and poultry products, meat sandwiches, chicken sandwiches. Class 30: Edible sandwiches, meat sandwiches, chicken sandwiches. Class 42: Services rendered or associated with operating and franchising restaurants and other establishments or facilities engaged in providing food and drink prepared for consumption and for drive-through facilities; preparation of carry-out foods. Subsequently, on December 12, 2022, Supermac’s filed an action before the General Court of the European Union (GCEU), by which it seeks the partial annulment and the alteration of the Contested Decision. On June 05, 2024, the GCEU ruled that McDonald’s has not proven that the mark has been put to genuine use as regards the goods ‘chicken sandwiches’ (Classes 29 and 30), ‘Foods prepared from poultry products’ (Class 29) and ‘Services rendered or associated with operating and franchising restaurants and other establishments or facilities engaged in providing food and drink prepared for consumption and for drive-through facilities; preparation of carry-out foods’(Class 42). Consequently, GCEU partially annulled and altered the Contested Decision, limiting the protection conferred on McDonald’s by the Trademark The above judgment also indicates that in addition to no longer being recognized as the owner of the “BIG MAC” trademark for the goods ‘chicken sandwiches’ (Classes 29 and 30), ‘Foods prepared from poultry products’ (Class 29) and ‘Services rendered or associated with operating and franchising restaurants and other establishments or facilities engaged in providing food and drink prepared for consumption and for drive-through facilities; preparation of carry-out foods’ (Class 42), McDonald’s is impossible to continue franchising such the   limited goods/services bearing the “BIG MAC” trademark throughout its restaurant system from the date of entry into force of the GCEU judgment. Another practical lesson from the giant tech company Apple Inc. (Apple) is that the trademark “Think Different” in Europe has been canceled due to the non-genuine-use of this protected trademark.[5] Apple, previously, was granted protection for the trademark “THINK DIFFERENT” with the European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO) under registration numbers (i) 671321 dated September 6, 1999 in Classes 09 & 16[6], (ii) 845461 dated November 18, 1999 in Class 09[7] and (iii) 4415063 dated May 8, 2006 in Classes 09 & 38[8] (Contested marks). On October 14, 2016, Swatch AG filed 03 requests for revocation for all trademarks mentioned above in the name of Apple claiming that the Contested marks had not been put to genuine use for the goods for goods in Class 09 (Computers, computer terminals, keyboards, printers, display units, terminals; modems; disc drives; computer peripherals; communications equipment; facsimile machines, answering machines, telephone-based information retrieval systems; adapters, adapter cards, connectors and drivers; blank computer storage media, computer programs, operating systems, computer hardware, software and firmware; computer memory devices; data recordings; cameras; fonts, typefaces, type designs and symbols, all recorded electronically or embodied in computer software; chips, discs and tapes bearing or for recording computer programs and software; random access memory, read only memory; solid state memory apparatus; electronic communication equipment and instruments; telecommunications apparatus and instruments; computer and electronic games; related computer equipment for use therewith; multimedia products comprising or for use with any of the aforesaid goods; interactive products comprising or for use with any of the aforesaid goods; parts and fittings for all the aforesaid goods) (Class 09) in EU. On March 24th, 2017, Apple submitted evidences proving the genuine use of the trademark, including a witness statement from the director of its legal department containing information on the history of the undertaking, the launch of the advertising campaign entitled ‘THINK DIFFERENT’ in 1997, the awards received for that campaign as well as the advertising expenditure and sales figures from the years 1994 to 2016 relating to the trademark;  articles from the website ‘www.macrumors.com’ and articles from the magazines Forbes (2012, 2015), The Telegraph (2012) and Time (2015) and in several other articles relating to Apple; numerous articles published from 1997 to 2016 containing information about Apple including the advertising campaign ‘THINK DIFFERENT’, parodies of ‘THINK DIFFERENT’, and the Broadway musical comedy ‘Nerds’; annual reports in 2009, 2010, 2013 and 2015. After many official communications/exchanges, on August 24, 2018, the Cancellation Division revoked the Contested marks in respect of all the goods concerned in Class 09, with effect from 14 October 2016. On October 17, 2018, Apple filed 03 appeals against the aforementioned decisions of the Cancellation Division and provided additional evidences showing the genuine use of the mark. However, according to Appeal Board, the evidences provided by Apple were merely individual pieces of evidences that did not demonstrate the genuine use of the trademark for goods in Class 09 as registered. Moreover, the trademark has just only been appeared on packaging in a relatively small position, next to the technical specifications/description, which was not distinctiveness enough to be use as a trademark to distinguish the mark from others for the goods in Class 09 (was not functioned as a trademark).  Therefore, the Fourth Board of Appeal dismissed the appeals filed by Apple. In other words, the “THINK DIFFERENT” trademark has been revoked for all goods in Class 09 in EU due to the reason of not being genuine used. Based on the result, Apple lose its exclusive rights to use the sign “THINK DIFFERENT” for the goods in Class 09 such as phones, computers, etc. and this is considered as a significant loss for Apple after this lawsuit. LESSONS LEARNED Regarding trademark registration Filing and registration the trademark which is identical to the actual use of the mark in practice. For the broadest of scope of protection, it is advisable to consider filing & registration the trademark in both its negative (black & white) & color forms as designed; Choosing to register a trademark for the goods/services which are being provided at the time of filing trademark application or in near future by its owner. It is not advisable to choose a very broad range of goods/services because of the meaningless of the action  in a long-term significance. For instant, such registration may serve as a market deterrent, but ultimately, there may be a risk that the validity of the mark is canceled based on 5-year non-use for the mark in whole which will cause difficulties for the owner; Once a trademark is registered, ensure to continuous using of the trademark and save the evidences of use or risk losing it; When affixing the trademark to commercial indications, be sure to put the trademark in a position that is easily visible to ensure the trademark’s function is to distinguish the goods/services of different individuals/organizations; In case the trademark owner is a company and the company may be terminated and go through dissolution procedures, if the decision is made to retain the validity of the trademark, the trademark transfer should be recorded before the company is officially dissolved. Regarding the use of trademarks in practice after being protected Once a trademark is protected, it is naturally the obligation and benefit of the owner to maintain the validity of the trademark. Use it or lose it principle should be paid attention by the owner; When a trademark has been protected, the owner is advisable to maintainthe use of the trademark by a simplest way which is to affix the trademark on sales invoices/service invoices. This option is although simple but can be considered a very legitimate form of trademark use; In Vietnam, up to now, there has not been currently detailed regulations on how to use a trademark to be recognized as genuine use for the registered goods/services. However, in the process of actual trademark use, the evidences of use should demonstrate the location, time, scope and nature of the trademark use. Regarding the scope of use, it is important to show the volume of commerce of overall use, as well as the duration of frequency of trademark use. Providing advertising materials should also be accompanied by evidences of the distribution of goods or provision of services, especially evidences of sales and revenue from the sales, distribution and provision of goods/services bearing the marks./. Author: Duong Thi Van Anh Footnotes [1] Article 95 of The law on intellectual property amending and supplementing a number of articles 2022: Cancellation of validity of protection titles The validity of a protection title shall be terminated in whole or in part in the following cases: a) The owner fails to pay the stipulated validity maintenance or extension fee; b) The owner declares relinquishment of the industrial property rights; c) The owner no longer exists, or the owner of a certificate of registered mark is no longer engaged in business activities and does not have a lawful heir; d) The mark has not been used by its owner or the licensee of the owner without justifiable reason for five (5) consecutive years prior to a request for cancellation of validity, except where use is commenced or resumed at least three (3) months before the request for cancellation; dd) The owner of a certificate of registered collective mark fails to supervise or ineffectively supervises the implementation of the regulations on use of the collective mark; e) The owner of a certificate of registered certification mark violates the regulations on use of the certification mark or fails to supervise or ineffectively supervises the implementation of such regulations; g) The geographical conditions decisive to reputation, quality or special characteristics of products bearing a geographical indication have changed resulting in the loss of such reputation, quality or characteristics of products. h) The use of a protected mark for goods or services by the mark owner or by a person authorized by the mark owner causes consumers to misunderstand the nature, quality or geographical origin of such goods or service; i) The protected mark becomes the common names of the goods or services registered for such mark; k) The foreign geographical indication is no longer protected in the country of origin. Where the owner of an invention patent or a utility solution patent fails to pay fees and charges to maintain its validity within the stipulated period, upon the expiration of such period, the protection title will be automatically invalidated from the date commencing the first effective year for which fees and charges for maintenance are not paid. Where the owner of protection title of a mark or industrial design fails to pay fees or charges for extension of validity within the stipulated period, upon the expiration of such period, the protection title will be automatically invalidated from the date commencing the next period of validity for which the feed and charges for extension are not paid. The State administrative body in charge of industrial property rights shall record the invalidation of a protection title in the National Industrial Property Registry and publish it in the Official Gazette of Industrial Property. Where the owner of a protection title declares waiver of the industrial property rights specified in sub-clause (b), clause 1 of this Article, the State administrative body in charge of industrial property rights shall consider and decide the invalidity of such protection title. Organizations and individuals have the right to request the state administrative body in charge of industrial property rights for invalidation of a protection title for the cases specified in subclauses (c), (d), (dd), (e), (g), (h), (i) and (k) clause 1 of this Article provided that the fees and charges must be paid. Based on the results of considering the request for invalidity of a protection title for the cases specified in clauses 3 and 4 of this Article, and opinions collected from related parties, the state administrative body in charge of the industrial property rights shall notify its refusal of invalidity of the protection title or its decision to invalidate the protection title in whole or in part. For the cases specified in sub-clauses (c), (d), (dd), (e), (g), (h) and (i), clause 1 of this Article, the protection title shall be invalidated from the date on which the state administrative body in charge of industrial property rights issues a decision to invalidate the protection title. For the case specified in sub-clause (k), clause 1 of this Article, the protection title shall be invalidated from the date on which the geographical indication is no longer protected in the country of origin. Where the state administrative body in charge of industrial property rights issues a decision to invalidate a protection title in accordance with clause 3 of this Article, the protection title shall be invalidated from the date on which the State administrative body in charge of industrial property rights receives a written declaration from the owner of such protection title. The provisions of clauses 1, 2, 3, 4, 5 and 6 of this Article shall also apply to the invalidity of international registration of marks and industrial designs.   [2] Clause 5 Article 124 of The law on intellectual property amending and supplementing a number of articles 2022: Use of industrial property objects Use of a mark means the performance of the following acts:  (a) Affixing the protected mark on goods, goods packages, business facilities, means of service provision or transaction documents in business activities;  (b) Circulating, offering, advertising for sale or stocking for sale goods bearing the protected mark;  (c) Importing goods or services bearing the protected mark.   [3] Details of the case published related to ruling number T 58/23 of the Court of Justice of the European Union regarding the case. https://curia.europa.eu/juris/document/document.jsf;jsessionid=D91371C3643028D30A6AC54AC4872CC3?text=&docid=286812&pageIndex=0&doclang=en&mode=lst&dir=&occ=first&part=1&cid=4952871 [4] Details of the "Big Mac" trademark under registration 62638 that has been protected in Europe under the name McDonald’s. https://euipo.europa.eu/eSearch/#details/trademarks/000062638 [5] Details of the annulment of Apple's THINK DIFFERENT trademark in Europe. https://curia.europa.eu/juris/document/document.jsf;jsessionid=F50268739366481494CD6F719464E759?text=&docid=260447&pageIndex=0&doclang=en&mode=req&dir=&occ=first&part=1&cid=8619586 [6] Details of the first "THINK DIFFERENT" trademark protected in Europe for Classes 09 & 16. https://euipo.europa.eu/eSearch/#details/trademarks/000671321 [7] Details of the second "THINK DIFFERENT" trademark protected in Europe for Class 09. https://euipo.europa.eu/eSearch/#details/trademarks/000845461 [8] Details of the third "THINK DIFFERENT" trademark protected in Europe for Classes 09 & 38. https://euipo.europa.eu/eSearch/#details/trademarks/004415063 [1] Article 95 of The law on intellectual property amending and supplementing a number of articles 2022: Termination of validity of protection titles The validity of a protection title shall be terminated in whole or in part in the following cases: a) The owner fails to pay the stipulated validity maintenance or extension fee; b) The owner declares relinquishment of the industrial property rights; c) The owner no longer exists, or the owner of a certificate of registered mark is no longer engaged in business activities and does not have a lawful heir; d) The mark has not been used by its owner or the licensee of the owner without justifiable reason for five (5) consecutive years prior to a request for termination of validity, except where use is commenced or resumed at least three (3) months before the request for termination; dd) The owner of a certificate of registered collective mark fails to supervise or ineffectively supervises the implementation of the regulations on use of the collective mark; e) The owner of a certificate of registered certification mark violates the regulations on use of the certification mark or fails to supervise or ineffectively supervises the implementation of such regulations; g) The geographical conditions decisive to reputation, quality or special characteristics of products bearing a geographical indication have changed resulting in the loss of such reputation, quality or characteristics of products. h) The use of a protected mark for goods or services by the mark owner or by a person authorized by the mark owner causes consumers to misunderstand the nature, quality or geographical origin of such goods or service; i) The protected mark becomes the common names of the goods or services registered for such mark; k) The foreign geographical indication is no longer protected in the country of origin. Where the owner of an invention patent or a utility solution patent fails to pay fees and charges to maintain its validity within the stipulated period, upon the expiration of such period, the protection title will be automatically invalidated from the date commencing the first effective year for which fees and charges for maintenance are not paid. Where the owner of protection title of a mark or industrial design fails to pay fees or charges for extension of validity within the stipulated period, upon the expiration of such period, the protection title will be automatically invalidated from the date commencing the next period of validity for which the feed and charges for extension are not paid. The State administrative body in charge of industrial property rights shall record the invalidation of a protection title in the National Industrial Property Registry and publish it in the Official Gazette of Industrial Property. Where the owner of a protection title declares waiver of the industrial property rights specified in sub-clause (b), clause 1 of this Article, the State administrative body in charge of industrial property rights shall consider and decide the invalidity of such protection title. Organizations and individuals have the right to request the state administrative body in charge of industrial property rights for invalidation of a protection title for the cases specified in subclauses (c), (d), (dd), (e), (g), (h), (i) and (k) clause 1 of this Article provided that the fees and charges must be paid. Based on the results of considering the request for invalidity of a protection title for the cases specified in clauses 3 and 4 of this Article, and opinions collected from related parties, the state administrative body in charge of the industrial property rights shall notify its refusal of invalidity of the protection title or its decision to invalidate the protection title in whole or in part. For the cases specified in sub-clauses (c), (d), (dd), (e), (g), (h) and (i), clause 1 of this Article, the protection title shall be invalidated from the date on which the state administrative body in charge of industrial property rights issues a decision to invalidate the protection title. For the case specified in sub-clause (k), clause 1 of this Article, the protection title shall be invalidated from the date on which the geographical indication is no longer protected in the country of origin. Where the state administrative body in charge of industrial property rights issues a decision to invalidate a protection title in accordance with clause 3 of this Article, the protection title shall be invalidated from the date on which the State administrative body in charge of industrial property rights receives a written declaration from the owner of such protection title. The provisions of clauses 1, 2, 3, 4, 5 and 6 of this Article shall also apply to the invalidity of international registration of marks and industrial designs. [2] Clause 5 Article 124 of The law on intellectual property amending and supplementing a number of articles 2022: Use of industrial property objects Use of a mark means the performance of the following acts:  (a) Affixing the protected mark on goods, goods packages, business facilities, means of service provision or transaction documents in business activities;  (b) Circulating, offering, advertising for sale or stocking for sale goods bearing the protected mark;  (c) Importing goods or services bearing the protected mark. [3] Details of the case published related to ruling number T 58/23 of the Court of Justice of the European Union regarding the case. https://curia.europa.eu/juris/document/document.jsf;jsessionid=D91371C3643028D30A6AC54AC4872CC3?text=&docid=286812&pageIndex=0&doclang=en&mode=lst&dir=&occ=first&part=1&cid=4952871 [4] Details of the "Big Mac" trademark under registration 62638 that has been protected in Europe under the name McDonald’s. https://euipo.europa.eu/eSearch/#details/trademarks/000062638 [5] Details of the annulment of Apple's THINK DIFFERENT trademark in Europe. https://curia.europa.eu/juris/document/document.jsf;jsessionid=F50268739366481494CD6F719464E759?text=&docid=260447&pageIndex=0&doclang=en&mode=req&dir=&occ=first&part=1&cid=8619586 [6] Details of the first "THINK DIFFERENT" trademark protected in Europe for Classes 09 & 16. https://euipo.europa.eu/eSearch/#details/trademarks/000671321   [7] Details of the second "THINK DIFFERENT" trademark protected in Europe for Class 09. https://euipo.europa.eu/eSearch/#details/trademarks/000845461 [8] Details of the third "THINK DIFFERENT" trademark protected in Europe for Classes 09 & 38. https://euipo.europa.eu/eSearch/#details/trademarks/004415063