How Similar Is Too Similar? Trademark Confusion and Refusal Risk in Vietnam

There is no legal rule in Vietnam that says “70% similarity means refusal” or “30% difference means safety.” Confusing similarity is assessed on the overall signs and the commercial relationship of the goods/services. Percentage scores can help prioritize search results, but they are not the legal test.

Use similarity scores to triage candidates, not as a substitute for legal analysis. A lower numeric score can still conceal a highly similar distinctive element.

1. Two questions must be considered together

• How close are the signs in appearance, sound, concept and overall impression?
• How close are the relevant goods/services and their trade channels or commercial purpose?

The same degree of similarity can produce a different risk depending on the goods/services. Famous marks may also enjoy a broader scope of concern.

2. Word marks: structure, sound and meaning

When comparing word marks, look at dominant elements, syllable pattern, pronunciation, spelling, meaning and the distinctiveness of the shared material. Adding a weak descriptive suffix may not neutralize a conflict if the earlier distinctive core remains dominant.

3. Figurative marks: visual impression matters

For logos, color is only one factor. Shape, orientation, composition, device elements and the overall visual impression may matter more. Two marks can use different colors but still create a similar visual concept.

4. Why Nice Class numbers alone are insufficient

Nice Classes organize goods/services; they do not create absolute legal boundaries. Cross-class conflicts are possible where the goods/services are related. Conversely, two items in one class can be commercially remote. The actual specification should always be reviewed.

5. How Lawdoc AI can assist

Lawdoc AI ranks potential conflicts using multiple similarity dimensions - including pronunciation, structure, meaning and image - and allows the user to add goods/services and Nice Class context. The best use of the score is to find the candidates that deserve legal attention first.

6. Example: why one added word may not be enough

Suppose an applicant proposes LAVIEON for beverages and an earlier LAVIE mark covers closely related goods. The additional ending “ON” may or may not create sufficient distance. The analysis should focus on the retained distinctive core, pronunciation, consumer impression and the relevant goods/services - not simply the number of changed letters.

7. What to do when a high-risk conflict appears

• Rework the dominant word element, not merely a weak suffix.
• Consider a materially different logo where the visual element is part of the risk.
• Revisit the goods/services specification if the intended commercial scope permits.
• Check whether the earlier mark remains active and relevant.
• Obtain local counsel analysis before filing or launching.

Frequently Asked Questions

What percentage similarity causes refusal in Vietnam?

There is no fixed statutory percentage. The legal analysis considers the overall marks and the relevant goods/services.

Can two similar marks coexist in different classes?

Sometimes, but different classes do not automatically remove conflict. The relationship between goods/services matters.

If I change the logo but keep the same word, is the risk solved?

Not necessarily. If the word element is the main source of confusion, a new logo may not be enough.

Conclusion

Trademark similarity is qualitative, not purely numerical. Lawdoc AI can rapidly surface phonetic, structural, semantic and visual candidates, but the filing decision should be based on why the marks are similar and whether the goods/services make that similarity legally significant.