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​ 

July 21, 2025
Distinctiveness is a fundamental requirement for a trademark’s registration and protection under Thai law. The Thai courts typically assess distinctiveness based on a mark’s inherent characteristics rather than its use, as proving acquired distinctiveness through use requires substantial evidence, including the duration of use, extent of distribution and promotional efforts. However, the Intellectual Property and International Trade Court (IP & IT Court) has recently ruled that the figurative mark WEPLAY had acquired distinctiveness through use – an uncommon ruling under Thai trademark law. Subsequently, the Court of Appeal for Specialised Cases affirmed the mark’s inherent distinctiveness based on a holistic assessment of its components. This article discusses the criteria for proving both inherent and acquired distinctiveness, offering examples from both courts to provide valuable insights into case preparation and understanding of how the courts assess distinctiveness. Background In 2017 the plaintiff filed a trademark application for the mark depicted below for goods in Class 28, including toy building blocks: The registrar rejected the application on the grounds of non-distinctiveness under Section 7 of the Trademark Act. The plaintiff appealed to the Board of Trademarks, which considered that, when the term ‘weplay’ is used for goods in Class 28, it is descriptive of the nature of the goods applied for as “playthings”. Therefore, ‘weplay’ was deemed nondistinctive under Section 7, Paragraph 2(2) of the Trademark Act. IP & IT Court decision In 2024 the IP & IT Court ruled that the term ‘weplay’ is not a coined or invented word; instead, it is a combination of ‘we’ and ‘play’, conveying the meaning of ‘we play’. When the term is used for goods in Class 28, it describes the nature of the goods as “playthings”. Consequently, the mark was deemed non-distinctive. However, the court considered the evidence presented by the plaintiff,
July 14, 2025
Life sciences specialists from Tilleke & Gibbins have updated the firm’s guide to pharmaceutical data exclusivity regulations and practices in Southeast Asia. This guide contains quick-reference information on the availability of data exclusivity protections and limitations in Cambodia, Indonesia, Laos, Malaysia, Myanmar, Thailand, and Vietnam. Developing and launching a new drug on a commercial scale requires an enormous amount of time and investment in research and development (R&D), including pre-clinical testing and clinical trials. When considering the aggregate amount of drug development costs, it is important to recognize that this includes not only the investment in developing new drugs that get approved by a government food and drug regulator and are successfully brought to market, but also the R&D expenditures on a large number of potential pharmaceutical compounds and products that never actually make it to market. In particular, considerable investment is required in order to conduct and produce clinical trial data—to prove safety, efficacy and effectiveness of a new drug—that would warrant marketing approval by the regulatory authority. Such data is proprietary in nature and highly valuable for a research-based pharmaceutical company that develops an original drug. On the other hand, patent law typically confers generic drug manufacturers with the ability to engage in various preparatory activities with a view to obtaining marketing approval for a generic product before the patent for the original drug expires (commonly known as a “Bolar provision”). Since a generic drug maker may submit an application for marketing approval of a generic product before the relevant patent expires, the extent to which the drug originator’s data submitted to the regulatory authority is protected—or in other words, the extent to which the generic company may rely on the drug originator’s previously filed data, which underpins the safety and efficacy of the drug, to support
June 30, 2025
Vietnam is making notable strides in decentralization, aiming to grant greater autonomy to local government entities to streamline administrative procedures. As part of this effort, the government issued Decree No. 133/2025/ND-CP on decentralization of state management of the Ministry of Science and Technology dated June 12, 2025 (Decree 133). Effective from July 1, 2025, Decree 133 decentralizes and delegates numerous state management functions—including in intellectual property (IP) and technology transfer—to provincial-level People’s Committees (PCs). This reform signals a profound shift in how IP rights are administered and enforced across Vietnam. While this offers new opportunities for IP owners, agents, and innovators, it also introduces additional operational complexities. Impact on IP and Technology Transfer Decree 133 significantly reallocates responsibilities in IP and technology transfer, primarily to provincial-level PCs. Provincial PCs and other provincial authorities are now empowered to handle a wide range of tasks, including but not limited to the following: Issuance of duplicates and reissuance of certificates of registration. Registration of license agreements for the transfer of usage rights for industrial property objects (e.g., trademarks, patents) and recording amendments, extensions, or early terminations of such agreements. Enforcing decisions on compulsory licensing of patent use rights. Evaluation and approval of technology transfer contracts—a key step in facilitating localized technological advancements. Permitting the establishment of foreign-invested scientific organizations and their branches, to encourage foreign direct investment in local R&D and technology development. Approval of provincial-level R&D tasks, aligning with local socio-economic development priorities. Legal Implications The decentralization and delegation brought forth by Decree 133 carry several significant legal implications: Echoing Decree 133, the Intellectual Property Office of Vietnam issued Notification No. 2351/TB-SHTT on June 26, 2025, announcing the cessation of 19 administrative procedures at the national level. Specifically, from July 1, 2025, the IP Office will no longer accept requests related
June 27, 2025
Three American giants are actively protecting their intellectual property rights against generative AI, as two legal battles commence on both sides of the Atlantic. In the UK, Seattle-based media company Getty Images accuses UK-based Stability AI of multiple IP infringements. In the US, The Walt Disney Company and Universal Studios are teaming up against Midjourney, an AI startup, with their main ground being copyright infringement. Both cases are centered around questions legal minds have been posing since the introduction of generative AI: Is the output of generative AI an infringement? And who is ultimately responsible for the output, the platform or the user? Getty Images v. Stability AI Getty initially filed a claim in the High Court in 2023, which resulted in Stability applying for reverse summary judgment on the grounds that Getty had no real prospect of success, arguing that their operations took place outside the UK. However, the High Court judge hearing the case decided that the claims brought by Getty did have a real prospect of succeeding in court. Despite this, Stability saw a small victory when the court ruled that the representative action brought by Getty would not succeed due to the difficulties in identifying who qualified for the class. The proposed class was comprised of 50,000 rightsholders who alleged their rights were also infringed. Stability was successful in arguing that identifying these individuals would be challenging due to the unclear definition of the class. This current trial is centered around four main grounds: Copyright infringement. Getty accuses Stability of using content that Getty owns or has an exclusive license for when training their model, Stable Diffusion, resulting in the generated output containing substantial parts of that content. Getty is also alleging secondary copyright infringement, arguing that Stability is importing an article into the UK