By Ly Ly Cao

HÀ NỘI — For many Vietnamese businesses, success in cross-border e-commerce is no longer determined solely by product quality or competitive pricing. 

As brands increasingly expand through digital platforms such as Amazon, Alibaba and TikTok Shop, intellectual property (IP) has become a critical business asset, one that, if left unprotected, can determine whether a company secures a market or loses it before its products even arrive.

According to Nguyễn Tiến Dũng, expert on cross-border e-commerce at Bavor Consulting, Vietnamese companies should no longer regard e-commerce as simply 'a retail sales channel' but as 'a national competitive advantage.' 

Businesses are moving from the traditional B2B model, which relies heavily on distributors, towards direct-to-consumer (D2C) exports that enable companies to reach customers directly while retaining full control of market data. 

However, Dũng cautioned that cross-border e-commerce was becoming increasingly demanding.

"E-commerce in 2026 requires compliance and systematic execution. The biggest mistake is the 'get rich quick' mindset, which leads to legal and tax risks," he told a recent seminar organised by the Vietnam Chamber of Commerce and Industry (VCCI).

Dũng said that sustainable exports were no longer driven by price competition alone.

"Sustainable cross-border e-commerce is not about selling at the lowest price, but about brand value," he said, explaining that developing a private-label business enables companies to own their intellectual property, protect profit margins against price pressure and build long-term business assets. 

He encouraged exporters to choose business models that match their capabilities. 

While manufacturers benefit from production capacity and cost advantages, private-label businesses focus on branding, customer experience and supply-chain optimisation. The D2C Global model, he added, would offer the greatest opportunity by allowing companies to control the entire customer journey, from production to delivery. 

Turning those ambitions into reality, however, would require businesses to protect the very assets that distinguish them in international markets.

Losing a trademark, losing an entire market

Lawyer Lê Quang Vinh, director of Bross & Partners, argued that businesses should answer three essential questions before entering any export market: What intellectual property rights do we own? Where should those rights be protected? And how should those rights be managed after registration? 

He said that trademark registration should no longer be viewed as an administrative procedure but as part of a broader export strategy.

Drawing on years of experience representing Vietnamese companies overseas, Vinh outlined five common ways exporters lose their brands abroad.

These include another party filing first under a first-to-file system, overseas distributors registering trademarks before the legitimate owner, premature disclosure of products before filing patent or industrial design applications, incomplete registrations covering insufficient classes or trademark versions, and failure to respond within statutory deadlines.

"Losing a trademark is not simply losing a registration certificate. It can mean losing an entire market," he said. 

The digital economy had heightened these risks. Before participating in international trade fairs, sending product catalogues to foreign buyers or listing products on Amazon, Alibaba, TikTok Shop or Etsy, businesses should review whether their intellectual property rights have already been secured.

Vinh cautioned: "Don't let your own product become evidence against yourself." 

Vinh introduced several prominent cases involving Vietnamese brands, demonstrating how intellectual property disputes could take different forms across jurisdictions.

One example involved Duy Loi Production Ltd., which successfully invalidated a Japanese utility model that threatened its folding hammock exports. 

Although the competitor's exclusive rights were cancelled, Duy Loi itself could not obtain exclusive protection because the product had already been publicly disclosed in Việt Nam, making it part of the prior art in Japan.

"The victory was defensive," Vinh said. "It did not translate into exclusive rights." 

Another case concerned G7 Coffee in Iceland, where the trademark registration was ultimately cancelled. 

However, Vinh emphasised that the decision was not based merely on whether the applicant 'knew or should have known' about the famous coffee brand.

Instead, the Icelandic authority examined the overall circumstances, including the identical trademark, overlapping goods, previous business relationships and the absence of legitimate authority to register the mark. 

The case demonstrated that allegations of bad faith require comprehensive evidence rather than assumptions. 

Vinh also compared two well-known Vietnamese geographical indications, Buôn Ma Thuột coffee and Phú Quốc fish sauce, to demonstrate that domestic recognition does not automatically guarantee protection overseas.

While Vietnamese authorities successfully recovered the Buôn Ma Thuột trademark after it had been registered in China, efforts to oppose the registration of Phú Quốc in another case were unsuccessful.

According to Vinh, the contrasting outcomes reflected differences in legal grounds, evidence, litigation strategy and procedural timing in the respective jurisdictions.

"Rights recognised in Việt Nam do not automatically protect themselves abroad," he said. 

Registration alone is not enough

As more exporters establish overseas distribution networks and digital shopfronts, intellectual property management increasingly extends beyond obtaining legal registration.

Vinh said that companies might retain ownership of a trademark certificate while gradually losing practical control over their brands if distributors manage official online stores, retain customer databases, register domain names or operate official social media accounts.

"The loss of a legal title means losing legal rights," he said. "The loss of distribution channels means losing the market." 

To reduce such risks, distribution and OEM agreements should clearly define ownership of trademarks, online stores, domain names, customer data, packaging designs and social media accounts, while also preventing overseas partners from registering similar intellectual property without authorisation. 

Sustainable cross-border exports require long-term planning rather than short-term sales ambitions, while intellectual property protection should begin long before products enter overseas markets.

Rather than treating trademark registration as a one-off legal formality, businesses were encouraged to consider the appropriate rights holder, target markets, product classifications, trademark versions, registration mechanisms and filing timing as part of an integrated export strategy.

"Registering early helps secure the door. Registering comprehensively and correctly is what helps secure the market," Vinh said. — BIZHUB/VNS