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

January 24, 2024

Vietnam’s Public Domain – Digging the Gold Mine with Care

Managing Intellectual Property

Mickey Mouse (or, rather, a specific early version of the iconic Disney character) famously entered the public domain in the United States on January 1, 2024, almost 100 years after his 1928 debut in the short film Steamboat Willie. Mickey’s arrival highlighted the increasingly wide annual observance of “Public Domain Day”—the day when creative works enter the public domain for the first time, after the expiration of their copyright terms. This date, however, is not international, and depends on the copyright laws of each country. In Vietnam, Mickey Mouse had been in the public domain for years.

Vietnam’s public domain regime

Under Vietnam’s IP Law, the duration of copyright protection for moral rights is indefinite, except for rights to publish the works, which, together with economic rights, have a protection term of 75 years from first publication for cinematographic works, photography, applied art, and anonymous works. When these works are not published within 25 years from the date of their creation, the protection term is 100 years from the date of creation. For anonymous works, the protection term is determined when information about the author becomes available. For other types of copyrighted works (such as literary and musical works), following the Berne Convention, the protection term is for the life of the author and 50 years after the author’s death. Works for which the terms of protection have expired belong to the public. Everyone is entitled to use such works but must respect the moral rights of the authors.

According to these regulations, Steamboat Willie and two other 1928 Mickey Mouse shorts, which are regarded as cinematographic works, have been in the public domain in Vietnam since 2003. This means that, for the past 21 years, anyone could legally copy, publish or distribute those shorts in Vietnam, and could also make derivative works from them — including prequels, sequels, spinoffs, and remakes using this particular version of the Mickey Mouse character.

The public domain privilege also largely benefits other type of works in Vietnam. Vietnamese publisher Dong A, for example, has introduced the Classic Literature bookshelf (Dong A Classics) with the release of 26 famous world-classic books that have come into the public domain, such as Tom Sawyer and Treasure Island. Other publishing houses and websites releasing e-books have taken advantage of the public domain to reissue works with expired copyrights, which can be gold mines for publishers. However, these gold miners should be careful when digging such precious ore, or they could face challenges to their claim.

Risk of infringing author’s moral rights

Article 19 of the IP Law lists the moral rights of authors, in which one controversial regulation is the right to “Protect the integrity of their works, and prevent others from modifying, mutilating or distorting their works in any form prejudicial to their honor and reputation.” As this moral right is protected perpetually and is non-transferable, the action of modifying a work, even after the protection term has expired, may still constitute infringement.

However, in practice, it is often difficult to determine whether a modification is “mutilating or distorting their works in any form prejudicial to their honor and reputation.” Proving the value of the works themselves is burdensome because there are no common criteria for evaluation. The evaluation of literary and artistic works is mainly based on each person’s subjective perspective.

Complications of derivative works

In addition to the copyright owned by the author, there are also rights to derivative works, which may still be valid. Therefore, even if an original work falls into the public domain, use of its derivative works may still constitute infringement.

Confusion can be caused when the copyright to a song (i.e., sheet music) has come into the public domain, but the related rights of a recording of such song are still in force. In 2021, before an AFF Cup soccer match between Vietnam and Laos, the viewing audience was surprised (and angry) when the Vietnamese national anthem “Tien Quan Ca” was muted on a streaming channel “due to copyright reasons.” It is commonly known that the song (including both music and lyrics) was donated by the family of the late musician Van Cao to the people of Vietnam. The song is in the public domain and anyone can record it or make derivative works from it. However, the reason behind this incident laid in the fact that the recording of “Tien Quan Ca” used in the match was produced and owned by foreign record label Marco Polo, and was still protected under copyright laws.

In contrast, when derivative works are made from works that have already entered the public domain, such as folk-art paintings, their creators can face an uphill climb defending their creations from copycat infringers, as anyone is free to derive works from the same source material and the creativity of the works will be difficult to assess.

Different protection terms in different countries

Because the copyright protection term of works can be different from country to country, use of works from foreign authors/right owners must be handled with extra caution.

For example, the American writer and presenter Dale Carnegie, author of the famous self-help book How to Win Friends and Influence People (Vietnamese title Dac Nhan Tam) died in 1955. Per the Berne Convention, the copyright of the work expired in Vietnam in 2005. However, in the U.S., the provisions of the Sonny Bono Copyright Term Extension Act extend the term of copyright protection to 70 years after the author’s death. Thus, the copyright protection period for How to Win Friends and Influence People in the U.S. has not yet expired.

In 2014, there was a dispute between Dale Carnegie Vietnam (the local franchise of U.S.-based training company Dale Carnegie & Associates, Inc.) against a former employee using a similar training course for his own business. As some copyrighted works of Dale Carnegie had fallen into the public domain in Vietnam, the company intended to bring the suit to a U.S. court where the copyright term was still valid.

To sum up, although public domain regulations in Vietnam and other countries can be beneficial for society as the free use may stimulate creation of other works, there are some more complex peripheral legal issues that should be well considered.

This article first appeared in Managing Intellectual Property.

RELATED INSIGHTS​ 

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
July 27, 2026
Tilleke & Gibbins’ intellectual property specialists have authored the Thailand chapter of Trade Secrets 2026 from Chambers and Partners. This global guide examines the legal frameworks governing trade secret protection, enforcement, and litigation across jurisdictions worldwide. The Thailand chapter provides a comprehensive overview of the country’s legal regime for protecting confidential business information, covering the legal framework, trade secret misappropriation, litigation procedures, remedies, and dispute resolution. Some topics covered include: Protectable trade secrets Reasonable measures to maintain secrecy Employee confidentiality Trade secret licensing Civil and criminal remedies Litigation procedures and injunctions Damages and other remedies Mediation and arbitration The guide also examines practical issues relating to safeguarding trade secrets, defending against allegations of misappropriation, and managing trade secret disputes in Thailand. Chambers and Partners’ Global Practice Guides provide in-house counsel with authoritative commentary on practical legal issues affecting business, enabling readers to compare legislation and procedures across multiple jurisdictions. The Thailand chapter of Trade Secrets 2026 is available on the Chambers and Partners website.
July 27, 2026
In March 2025, Thailand’s Central Intellectual Property and International Trade Court (IP&IT Court) issued a landmark judgment in favor of Luckin Coffee, China’s leading retail coffee chain. The judgment marked a significant turnaround following earlier trademark litigation involving Luckin Coffee from 2021 to 2023 that had generated widespread public attention and raised questions about the protection available to legitimate foreign brand owners in Thailand. In a significant subsequent development, Thailand’s Court of Appeal for Specialized Cases has now affirmed the IP&IT Court’s judgment in its entirety. The appellate decision brings clarity to one of Thailand’s most closely watched trademark disputes. Significantly, this is the first case in Thailand to formally recognize the trademark squatting principle. The Court of Appeal confirmed that Luckin Coffee has a better right to the disputed mark and ordered cancellation of the defendants’ trademark registration—a key application of the “better right” doctrine. The court also upheld the substantial damages awarded at first instance, providing important guidance on assessing harm from systematic trademark squatting. Award-Winning Judgment Affirmed in Its Entirety The significance of the first-instance judgment extended beyond the outcome for Luckin Coffee. The IP&IT Court judgment was subsequently recognized in the IP&IT Court’s Distinguished Judgment Awards in 2025, reflecting the complexity, novelty, and legal significance of the issues considered in the case. The defendants nevertheless appealed the judgment, challenging several key aspects of the IP&IT Court’s decision. Luckin Coffee continued to entrust Tilleke & Gibbins as their sole attorney to pursue the case at the appellate level. After considering the defendants’ appeal and Luckin Coffee’s submissions in response, the Court of Appeal affirmed the first-instance judgment in its entirety. The judgment was announced on July 8, 2026. Better Right to the Marks The Court of Appeal confirmed Luckin Coffee’s superior rights. The orders include cancellation