Building collective brands for agricultural products

(Baonghean) -In Nghe An province, some products supplied by businesses on the market have become famous beyond the province, for example: Vinh oranges, Xa Doai oranges, Cua Lo fish sauce, Thanh Chuong pickles, Nam Dan soy sauce, Vinh Duc rice paper (Do Luong)... However, how to protect industrial property rights (IPR) for these products is still a question that needs to be researched.

Incense production at Quy Chau Incense Cooperative.

The protection of certification marks and geographical indications for agricultural products is important in the commercialization of agricultural products, but according to documents archived at the National Office of Intellectual Property (NOIP), the NOIP has not yet recorded any application for protection of certification marks or geographical indications for agricultural products in Nghe An.

Regarding collective trademarks, the Department of Intellectual Property has just recorded 8 applications from organizations representing Nghe An enterprises requesting protection, of which only 3 applications have been granted certificates of trademark registration. Of the 3 collective trademarks that are still valid for protection, there is a collective trademark protection certificate owned by the Cua Brick and Tile Association for products in group 19: Non-metallic construction materials, non-metallic roofing tiles, bricks. However, this trademark does not protect agricultural products. The remaining two collective trademarks are owned by the Farmers' Association of Quynh Di commune, Quynh Luu district, for products of various types of fish sauce, shrimp paste, sour shrimp paste, processed aquatic and seafood products such as shrimp (not alive), fish (not alive), and by the Quy Chau Incense Cooperative, located at Block 2, Tan Lac commune, Quy Chau district, for incense products. Documents at the Department of Intellectual Property show that the Farmers' Association of Quynh Di commune used an industrial property representative service to submit an application for trademark protection and the Quy Chau Incense Cooperative directly submitted an application for protection without using an industrial property representative service. At the same time, during the formal and substantive examination process, the applicant fully met the requirements of the law on intellectual property.

Research on the case of refusal to protect a trademark for an agricultural product shows that the application filed by the Agricultural Service Cooperative of Do Luong Town, Do Luong District, requested protection of the collective trademark "Vinh Duc Craft Village" for group of goods No. 30. The application was refused to be accepted as valid through the formal examination process, for the following reasons: Lack of a license from a competent state agency to allow the use of the place name "Vinh Duc" on the collective trademark as prescribed in Article 87, Clause 3 of the Law on Intellectual Property: A legally established collective organization has the right to register a collective trademark for its members to use according to the regulations on the use of collective trademarks; for signs indicating the geographical origin of goods and services, the organization with the right to register is a collective organization of organizations and individuals conducting production and business in that locality; For place names and other signs indicating the geographical origin of local specialties of Vietnam, registration must be permitted by a competent state agency; The use of collective trademarks in the Regulations on management and use of collective trademarks of Vinh Duc craft village is not uniform.

In the case of the application submitted by the Association for the development of the brand of the craft village of frozen seafood processing and preservation located at Block 6, Nghi Tan Ward, Cua Lo Town, requesting protection of the collective trademark "Processing and preserving seafood" for group of goods No. 29. The application was refused to be accepted as valid through the formal examination process, for the following reasons: The name of the applicant stated on the declaration is not consistent with the Association's Regulations and Charter. The applicant used two different names, specifically on the declaration it was written "Association for the development of the brand village of frozen seafood processing and preservation", while in the Association's Regulations and Charter it was written "Association for the development of the brand village of frozen seafood processing and preservation", a very small error, only different in the word "frozen", but it was also not accepted; The classification of products bearing the trademark stated on the declaration is incorrect and inconsistent with the Regulations; Not meeting the regulations in Article 87, Clause 3 of the Law on Intellectual Property... Thus, both cases of being refused valid acceptance are very simple and easy to fix, they are both formal errors.

In the process of commercializing agricultural products, consumers tend to choose products with certified quality (even though the price may be high) instead of consuming similar products that are not certified. Because of such an important role, the owner of the certification mark should be a public legal entity, for example, a state management agency. Through studying the above two cases and other unsuccessful cases, we would like to make the following recommendations that should be studied: Business organizations should use the advice of the Department of Science and Technology of the province in the process of completing the dossier, to avoid the situation where the application is denied protection right in the formal assessment stage. The use of a place name in a trademark must be permitted by a competent state agency; The state management agency, which can be the Department of Science and Technology, the People's Committee at the district level, the specialized agency under the People's Committee at the district level, etc., should be the subject of the certification mark for agricultural products in Nghe An province or in a district of the province; For collective trademarks protecting agricultural products, their ownership should belong to the organization representing the legitimate rights and interests of farmers.

Currently, Nghe An has not had any application for certification trademark protection, only 3 collective trademarks are protected, of which only 2 collective trademarks are protected for agricultural products. The above number is too small compared to the agricultural potential of the province.

Tran Hai Linh