A scooter design protected by a protection title was copied almost exactly on a line of electric motorbikes. The copier argued that its vehicles were “a different type, with different details, and already inspected”. The court still accepted all of Piaggio’s claims. The lesson: whoever files first holds the rights.
1. The case in 60 seconds
Piaggio held an industrial design patent (Bằng độc quyền kiểu dáng công nghiệp) for a line of scooters. Several companies launched electric motorbikes with a near-identical design and similar labels.
Is a different engine type, a few different ridges and grooves, and an inspection certificate enough to avoid infringement?
Rights belong to the party that files first and is granted a protection title. Register your industrial design and trademark before you launch a product.
2. What happened?
- Piaggio establishes its rights. It was granted Industrial Design Patent No. 20652 in Vietnam for a line of scooters with a distinctive design.
- Similar products appear. Several companies (such as Company E and Detech) made and distributed electric motorbikes whose overall shape, front apron, headlight unit and wing-shaped rear cover were almost copies.
- Confusing labels. Some businesses also attached or sold labels bearing signs similar to Piaggio’s registered trademark.
- The defendants push back. They argued that their products were electric, not petrol, vehicles, differed in some ridges and grooves, and had their own inspection certificates.
- The courts rule. Judgment No. 01/2018/KDTM-ST (People’s Court of Hung Yen Province) and Judgment No. 36/2018/KDTM-ST (People’s Court of Hanoi) accepted all of Piaggio’s claims.
3. Where is the legal issue?
When do rights arise?
Rights to industrial designs and trademarks arise from the protection title. When several parties seek protection for the same subject matter, the party that filed the earliest valid application has priority.
What counts as copying a design?
Courts and expert assessment bodies compare the set of basic design features of the product. They do not compare each small detail or the type of engine inside.
Is an inspection certificate a “shield”?
A vehicle type-approval quality certificate confirms technical requirements. It does not confirm that the product does not infringe another party’s intellectual property rights.
Is your protection layered enough?
Piaggio held both an industrial design and a trademark, so it could deal with the copied shape and the similar labels at the same time.
4. From the facts to the management lesson
| Fact | Analysis | Lesson |
|---|---|---|
| Piaggio was granted Industrial Design Patent No. 20652 before the similar electric models appeared. | Under the first-to-file principle, rights belong to the party that filed first and was granted a protection title, not to the party that put the product on the market first. | File design and trademark applications before you launch or display a product. |
| The defendants argued that their vehicles were electric and differed in some ridges and grooves. | The expert assessment found that the set of basic design features did not create a significant difference. Small differences did not change the conclusion. | Carry out a freedom-to-operate (FTO) search before mass production. Do not rely on “changing a few details”. |
| The defendants already held vehicle type-approval quality certificates. | A technical certificate does not exclude liability for infringement. The court also ordered the infringer to have the certificate cancelled at Vietnam Register (Cục Đăng kiểm). | Check IP rights separately from administrative licensing procedures. |
Fact: facts stated in the judgment · Analysis: FC Legal’s view · Lesson: what businesses should do.
5. What did the court decide?
In Judgment No. 01/2018/KDTM-ST (People’s Court of Hung Yen Province) and Judgment No. 36/2018/KDTM-ST (People’s Court of Hanoi), the trial panel:
- accepted all of Piaggio’s claims;
- ordered the infringers to stop making and selling products with the infringing design, and to destroy moulds, labels and stock containing infringing elements;
- ordered them to carry out the procedure at Vietnam Register to cancel the type-approval quality certificate for the infringing model;
- ordered a public apology and compensation for damage, including lawyer’s fees and the costs of a bailiff’s record (vi bằng), buying samples and expert assessment.
Piaggio had established lawful industrial property rights first, under the first-to-file principle of the Law on Intellectual Property. The expert assessment found that the electric vehicle design was not significantly different from the design covered by the protection title.
6. What should businesses do now?
- Register from the R&D stage. File design and trademark applications before you put the product on the market or show it at a trade fair or exhibition.
- Protect in several layers, at the same time. Register the word mark, the logo, the packaging and the distinctive design parts of the product.
- Run a freedom-to-operate (FTO) search before large-scale production. Search the database of the Intellectual Property Office of Vietnam to make sure your design is not identical or similar to another party’s protection title.
- Keep design records. Keep drawings, original files and dated emails to prove the creation process if needed.
Many businesses only think about registration once a product is selling well. The Piaggio case shows the opposite: holding the protection title first is the deciding advantage in a dispute. For a new product, list its intellectual property assets from the design stage and file before any public disclosure.
Ask a lawyer →7. Frequently asked questions
Can I still register an industrial design for a product already on the market?
The risk is high. A design must be new, and disclosure before the filing date can destroy novelty, apart from some exceptions within a short period set by law. Ask a lawyer to assess this before filing.
Can changing a few details avoid infringement?
Usually not. The comparison is based on the set of basic design features. If the overall design is not significantly different, the product is still treated as infringing, as in the Piaggio case.
Am I safe if I have an inspection certificate or a circulation permit?
No. These documents confirm technical and quality requirements. In the Piaggio case, the court also ordered the infringer to have its vehicle type-approval certificate cancelled.
Search and register your industrial designs and trademarks with an FC Legal lawyer
Before you launch a product or take part in a trade fair or exhibition.
- Freedom-to-operate (FTO) searches for designs and trademarks
- Advice on a multi-layer protection strategy
- Drafting and filing applications at the Intellectual Property Office of Vietnam
Please do not send confidential documents or personal data through the form.
Sources
People’s Court of Hung Yen Province: Judgment No. 01/2018/KDTM-ST, industrial property dispute, Piaggio.
People’s Court of Hanoi: Judgment No. 36/2018/KDTM-ST, industrial property dispute, Piaggio.
National Assembly: Law on Intellectual Property, consolidated text including the amendments of 2009, 2019 and 2022.
This article is for reference. It analyses published judgments and does not replace legal advice on a specific case. Some parties’ names are abbreviated as in the published judgments. For detailed advice, please contact the FC Legal legal team.
Prepared by the FC Legal legal team and reviewed by FC Legal’s managing lawyer. Updated 30 September 2026.
