You are using an outdated browser and your browsing experience will not be optimal. Please update to the latest version of Microsoft Edge, Google Chrome or Mozilla Firefox. Install Microsoft Edge

May 30, 2022

Are Game Show Formats in Vietnam Protected by Copyright?

Managing Intellectual Property

TV game shows play an important role in the Vietnamese entertainment industry, as in the global market. Many well-known game shows from other countries have been franchised or licensed for broadcast in Vietnam, including Who Wants to Be a Millionaire?, Vietnam’s Got Talent, and The Voice, drawing large audiences and generating billions of VND from commercialized activities. Other popular shows have been developed domestically—some wholly original, but many bearing a heavy resemblance to existing shows from other markets, with similar gameplay, similar sets, and even similar names.

This raises an interesting question from the intellectual property perspective as to whether owners or creators of game shows can charge these copycat shows with infringement. In other words, are format rights recognized as a copyright and can a game show be protected under intellectual property law?

Globally, this is a question without a clear and explicit answer. The Format Recognition and Protection Association (FRAPA), a trade association formed in 2000 to advocate recognition of television formats as intellectual property, strongly believes that format rights are protectable and has been working to convince courts and lawmakers around the world to define these rights under law. However, recognition of format rights is still very limited, and is often determined on a case-by-case basis.

A common argument from legal experts is that because the format of a game show is only composed of ideas, which are not protected by law, it cannot be the subject of copyright (for reference, Green v Broadcasting Corporation of New Zealand in 1989). However, others argue that if the format of a game show is an intellectual creation and contains key elements which have unique originality, and it is not just a combination of general and commonplace elements, it can be protected under copyright law (for reference, Meakin v BBC [2010] EWHC 2065).

Format Rights in Vietnam

Vietnam’s IP Law does not stipulate any protection of formats and there are no provisions on infringement and enforcement of format rights. In other words, format rights have not yet been recognized in Vietnam. However, it is believed that a game show can still be separately protected under the IP Law via copyright for (i) literary works for the scripts, and (ii) dramatic works for the “expression” of the game show on stage (including the concept, structure, studio and lighting design, rules, etc.).

The IP Law does not require copyright owners/authors to register their works (in this context, the literary work or the dramatic work) but it is a recommended and easy way to prove the ownership of a copyrighted work in order to prevent potential infringement.

Assessment of Copyright Infringement Between Game Shows

Although there is a way to partially protect the copyright of a game show, when it comes to a claim of copyright infringement, it is far more complicated, especially when the global entertainment industry has created and televised hundreds of game shows with many features and elements in common.

To establish copyright infringement, including for literary works and dramatic works, there are at least three criteria to consider: originality, the similarity of the disputed works, and the willfulness of the alleged infringer.

Originality can be difficult to prove. Many game shows fall into recognizable categories with similar ideas and structures, like quiz shows or talent contests. For example, most singing competitions, like the Idol and The Voice franchises, have contestants demonstrate their talents on stage, after which the panelists/judges give comments and scores, and contestants are eliminated from round to round until a championship or grand finale finds a winner of the show. When a game show’s format has these very common elements, it is hard to claim they give the show originality. And even though each game show is an interactive event where the participants have the freedom to act and comment beyond any prewritten script, it is doubtful that such acting and reacting can make the whole game show original.

Discerning the similarities between disputed game shows is also important when considering whether an allegedly infringing show is a copy or a derivative work of the earlier show. To this extent, it is necessary to identify whether the similar elements are essential to the whole show or just coincidental. For example, both Who Wants to Be a Millionaire? and Rồng Vàng (a popular game show in Vietnam from 2003 to 2007, licensed from a Thai show) have similar elements and structures wherein a single contestant tackles a series of multiple-choice, general-knowledge questions to win a large cash prize, and can confer with family and friends to find the answer. A viewer of both shows would certainly recognize a resemblance and might confuse one for the other. However, to our knowledge, no infringement suit was ever pursued, likely due to the originality issue. The elements that were most similar were common or even inherent to the quiz show genre, while the elements that were arguably the most distinctive—such as the amount of the cash prize, a key element of the Millionaire brand—were different.

Finally, the claimant must prove that the infringer willfully copied the copyrighted work in question. It is possible to prove this indirectly by showing that the original work was created, published, or registered before the copycat, and that the infringer should have known that its work could damage the claimant’s rights.

Conclusion

While Vietnam’s IP Law does not expressively provide copyright protection for game shows, it is clear that a game show can indirectly be protected through its literary works and/or dramatic works. However, it is not easy to enforce the copyright of a game show in practice because in the entertainment industry, there is a blurred line between copyright infringement and the similarity of ideas among game shows. Thus, one must carefully evaluate and assess the show’s originality and the similarity between the disputed game shows, and the willfulness of the infringer. Only when all the criteria are satisfied can we say that there is a copyright infringement of the game show.

This article first appeared in Managing Intellectual Property.

RELATED INSIGHTS​ 

August 10, 2026
Thailand has finalized its social media KYC (“know your customer”) rules under Notification of the Electronic Transactions Commission on Measures to Prevent Technological Crimes for Social Media Service Providers (No. 2), which was published in the Government Gazette on May 5, 2026, and will take effect on November 1, 2026. While an early draft of the notification proposed requiring social media platforms to arrange identification of every user account, the final notification is significantly more targeted, focusing on paid online advertising and advertiser identity verification. Though the regulatory initiative primarily aims to combat online fraud and technology-related crimes, it also has important consequences for intellectual property enforcement, because the verified platform records that will be generated under the new requirements can help IP rights holders to identify anonymous online infringers. Key Regulatory Mandates The notification requires social media service providers to verify the identity of advertisers before their paid advertisements are published and disseminated in Thailand through social media, regardless of whether the advertising fees come from the advertisers or third parties. Verification of an advertiser is valid for one year, after which verification would have to be performed again before the platform could publish additional paid advertisements from the advertiser. Permitted verification methods are specified under the notification. A platform may verify an advertiser by checking identity evidence and confirming the connection between the advertiser and that identity evidence, with the notification giving facial comparison against certain government-issued identity documents as an example. Alternatively, platforms may verify advertisers through a digital identity verification and authentication system with an identity-proofing assurance level not lower than the level prescribed by Thailand’s Electronic Transactions Commission. The notification further requires platforms to retain only the advertiser’s information necessary to identify the advertiser, beginning from the start of the advertising activity and for
August 6, 2026
Introduction: A Trademark Paradox in Sustainable Packaging Walk into any Thai supermarket, and the label-free water bottle is no longer a novelty. Thailand’s packaging market, valued at approximately USD 15.68 billion in 2025, is shifting toward minimalist, plastic-light designs as ESG pressures reshape how brands present their products. The country generated roughly 5.68 million tons of plastic waste in 2021, with a recycling rate of only 19 percent, and regulators are now considering rules that would allow label-free bottled water relying on embossing, laser printing, or QR codes instead of wrap-around labels. As packaging itself becomes the brand identifier, a paradox emerges: designs built to say the least often struggle hardest for protection under Thai intellectual property law. The Trademark Barrier: When Shape Is Not Enough Section 7, paragraph 2(10) of the Thai Trademark Act deems a shape distinctive only if it is not the natural form of the goods, is not necessary to achieve a technical result, and does not add value to the goods. The Department of Intellectual Property’s 2022 examination guidelines apply this test conservatively, as the following examples illustrate. A plain water bottle relying on subtle contours to signal its brand is typically read as just another bottle, not a source identifier. Acquired distinctiveness offers a theoretical escape route, but it demands extensive evidence of sales, advertising, and consumer recognition—an especially heavy burden for new entrants whose minimalist packaging has not yet achieved market prominence. The result is a structural bias against precisely the design innovation that sustainability goals are meant to encourage. Design Patents: A Partial, Imperfect Substitute Design patent protection, covering a product’s shape, configuration, or ornamentation, appears to offer an alternative route. In practice, it is constrained by the same forces driving the minimalist trend. Because many brands converge on similar solutions—clear
August 4, 2026
Intellectual property (IP) protection sometimes hinges on fame and recognition. However, this alone will not always be sufficient to overcome an IP dispute when it involves contractual obligations or registered rights. Below are five cases from around the world that tackle some of the basic issues in IP registration, ownership, commercialization, and enforcement. 1. USA: Taylor Swift Trademark Application Refused Taylor Swift recently filed a trademark application to register “The Life of a Showgirl,” which is the title of her 12th studio album. When examining a trademark application, the examiner considers various factors before deciding whether it should be registered. One of these factors is whether there is a likelihood of confusion (i.e., would a regular consumer mistake the origin of the trademark). In Taylor Swift’s case, the US Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO) decided that that there would be a risk of confusion. This decision was based on the existing registered trademark, “Confessions of a Showgirl,” owned by Maren Wade, which was registered in 2015. The USPTO refused Taylor Swift’s application based on the shared key distinctive element “of a showgirl,” the lack of sufficient distinguishing terms, the marks being used in overlapping markets (entertainment and performances), and because consumers may assume a common commercial source. Maren Wade then filed a lawsuit in California against Taylor Swift and her affiliated companies, arguing that Taylor Swfit’s branding is confusingly similar in structure, wording, and overall commercial impression to her registered mark. She is also drawing on the USPTO’s refusal of Taylor Swift’s application to support her argument of a likelihood of confusion. A judgment has not yet been reached in this case, but it serves as an important reminder of the importance of satisfying the essential elements required for IP registration. 2. Australia: Katy Perry v. Katie Perry In
July 27, 2026
Vietnam’s new E-Commerce Law, which took effect on 1 July 2026 along with its implementing Decree No. 248/2026/ND-CP (Decree 248), marks a significant development in the country’s approach to online intellectual property (IP) enforcement, reflecting a clear shift from a reactive model of intermediary liability to one that expects platforms to play a more active role in preventing infringement. From notice-and-takedown to platform responsibility The most significant change introduced by the E-Commerce Law is the transformation of the legal role of e-commerce platforms. The existing safe harbor provisions under the IP Law and the copyright notice-and-takedown regime established by Decree 17/2023/ND-CP (Decree 17) largely required intermediaries to act only after receiving notice of infringement. Once infringing content had been removed, the platform’s legal obligation was generally considered fulfilled. The new legislation adopts a fundamentally different approach. Article 17 of the E-Commerce Law requires intermediary platforms to screen information relating to goods and services before publication in order to prevent listings involving counterfeit or IP-infringing goods, and goods of unknown origin. Rather than relying exclusively on complaints from rights holders, platforms are now expected to implement preventive measures before infringing listings become publicly available. Decree 248 further requires platforms to update keyword filters based on recommendations issued by competent authorities. These filtering mechanisms are intended to prevent prohibited listings from appearing on the platform and represent a further move away from a purely complaint-driven enforcement model. The legislation also introduces Vietnam’s first statutory stay-down obligation. Under the E-Commerce Law and Decree 248, major digital platforms must maintain automated systems capable of reviewing, warning against, and removing unlawful listings while also implementing measures to prevent repeat violations, defined under Decree 248 as conduct that has previously been identified and handled by the platform, but continues to recur. This obligation addresses one