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 15, 2025
Indonesia’s Directorate General of Intellectual Property (DGIP) has introduced a temporary feature in its online filing system to accommodate the submission of annual patent working statements. The requirement to submit these annual working statements was introduced under the amended Patent Law enacted on October 28, 2024, but the implementing regulation has still not been issued. Annual Working Statements Article 20A of the amended Patent Law requires all patentees to submit an annual statement regarding the implementation of their patents in Indonesia. This obligation applies to all active patents, regardless of when they were granted. The annual working statement declares the status of implementation of the patented invention within Indonesia. Acceptable forms of implementation include: Manufacturing the patented product (whether commercialized or not) Utilizing the patented process (whether commercialized or not) Importation Licensing If the patent has not yet been implemented in Indonesia, the DGIP provides an option to indicate: “The mentioned registered patent has not been implemented in Indonesia.” The statement must be made using the official template provided by the DGIP through the online filing system. Submission The working statement must be submitted annually no later than December 31 of each calendar year. No supporting documents are needed for the submission apart from the signed form itself. A color scanned copy will suffice; the original document is not required. There is currently no official fee for submitting the working statement. While the submission process may eventually align with annuity fee payments, the current process remains separate due to the pending implementing regulation. The submission process may be subject to change upon issuance of the implementing regulation, which is under discussion and expected in the coming months. In the interim, the DGIP accepts submissions of overdue working statements, allowing patentees to fulfill their obligations retroactively. This flexibility is expected
July 31, 2025
The Madrid System for international trademark registration provides the opportunity for a simplified and cost-effective way to register trademarks in multiple countries through a single application. Indonesia joined the Madrid System in 2018, and in 2024 alone, it received over 8,600 applications through this system. Despite the system’s effectiveness, it is important for trademark owners to be aware of the potential risks of refusal that can arise during the process of registration. Trademark applicants must pay close attention to these critical points when designating Indonesia. Appointing a Local Representative to Respond An applicant or representative of an international registration (IR) application that has been provisionally refused must appoint a local Indonesian representative in order to submit a response to the provisional refusal. This appointment is solely for the purpose of responding to the refusal in Indonesia; it is not necessary if the IR has not received any rejection. Furthermore, the local representative should not be registered with WIPO, as doing so would affect representation across all designated countries. Timing When it comes to calculating the deadline for responding to a provisional refusal, there is a discrepancy between the methods used by the DGIP and WIPO. Under the Indonesian Trademark Law, trademark owners can file a response within 30 working days, excluding weekends and national holidays. However, the WIPO cover letter accompanying the DGIP’s provisional refusal notice specifies both the start date and the deadline for responding to the notification, which is calculated as 30 calendar days, including weekends and national holidays. Therefore, a response to the provisional refusal of IR should be submitted in accordance with the WIPO cover letter to prevent any formality issue. Grounds for Refusal After an IR application is published in Indonesia’s Trademark Gazette, it undergoes substantive examination by the Directorate General of Intellectual Property (DGIP) examiners. The
July 30, 2025
Artificial intelligence (AI) model training and data scraping are essential processes in the development of modern AI systems. AI model training involves using large datasets to teach machine learning algorithms to recognize patterns, make predictions, or generate new content. Data scraping refers to the automated extraction of information from websites or digital sources, often to assemble the vast datasets required for effective AI training. As these practices become more widespread, questions about the legality of using third-party content—especially copyrighted works—have become increasingly important. In Thailand, the legal landscape for AI developers is shaped primarily by the Copyright Act, which presents unique challenges due to the absence of a fair-use exception. This article examines the copyright-related risks and legal uncertainties facing AI developers under Thailand’s current copyright law and practices, offering strategic guidance for navigating this complex environment. Copyright Risks in AI Scraping and Training Thailand’s Copyright Act does not provide a broad fair use or fair dealing exception, unlike some other jurisdictions, such as the United States. This absence has significant consequences for AI developers: No general defense for AI training: Any use of copyrighted material for AI model training is presumed to be infringing unless a specific, narrow statutory exception applies or explicit permission is obtained from the rights holder. There is no general legal basis for using copyrighted works in AI training without authorization. Increased rights clearance burden: Developers must identify and secure licenses for every copyrighted work included in their training datasets. Given the scale and diversity of data required for effective AI models, this process can be both impractical and costly. Legal ambiguity and litigation risk: The lack of clear statutory guidance or case law leaves developers in a legal gray area. There is no established precedent clarifying whether certain uses of copyrighted material for
July 25, 2025
Over the first half of 2025, the government of Vietnam has implemented a comprehensive suite of legislative reforms that significantly impact the country’s intellectual property (IP) framework. These amendments, most of which took effect on 1 July 2025, span the criminal, civil, administrative, and judicial sectors, and are part of a broader initiative to modernize Vietnam’s legal infrastructure, strengthen enforcement mechanisms, and harmonize domestic regulations with international standards. A summary of the key legislative changes and their potential implications for IP protection and enforcement across Vietnam is provided below. Criminal Code: Stricter penalties Under the 2025 amendments to Vietnam’s Criminal Code, penalties for offenses involving the manufacturing and trading of counterfeit goods have been significantly escalated. Individuals convicted of such violations now face fines ranging from VND 200 million to VND 2 billion (approximately USD 7,700 to USD 77,000; up from VND 100 million to VND 1 billion). For corporate entities, the penalties are even more severe, with fines ranging from VND 2 billion to VND 40 billion (roughly USD 77,000 to USD 1.54 million; up from VND 1 billion to VND 20 billion). These heightened penalties reflect the government’s intensified efforts to deter counterfeit-related crimes and protect consumer rights. Law on Handling Administrative Violations: Extended statute of limitations and application of electronic procedure The statute of limitations for addressing administrative violations in the IP sector is still two years. However, in cases where such violations are referred by procedural authorities, this period is extended by one year. The time taken by these authorities to process the case is now included within the overall limitation period. In addition, the Law on Handling Administrative Violations facilitates the use of electronic procedures, provided that the necessary infrastructure, technical systems, and information conditions are in place. Specifically, enforcement authorities are now permitted