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

November 14, 2022

Assessment Process Remains an Obstacle in Copyright Enforcement in Vietnam

Managing Intellectual Property

In copyright disputes in many countries around the world, experts who can provide professional opinions based on their deep expertise in specific fields play a very important role. It is the same in Vietnam when copyright disputes are brought to court. The judges and court staff may have almost no knowledge in specific areas of settlement such as fine arts, music, or computer programs. For this reason, they focus only on the legal aspect of the cases; however, the legal aspect can only be considered on the basis of analysis from experts, commonly known in Vietnam as “assessment” (or expert opinion).

Assessment Has Become Essential

For copyright disputes that are resolved in court, except in cases where the behavior is very clear, a court order only occurs when there are assessment conclusions. The legal basis for considering assessment conclusions as an important source of evidence can be found in the 2005 Law on Intellectual Property, as amended in June 2022, and its subordinate legal documents. However, the particular importance of assessment is not shown in legislation but rather in practice, through the fact that the courts and procuracies attach great importance to these assessment conclusions and treat them as necessary—sometimes even compulsory—documents from which they make their judgments and rulings.

It is rare for a court to express any opinion on the contents of an assessment conclusion, and rarer still for a court to make a judgment or ruling that is contrary to the conclusion. Thus, it seems that assessment conclusions, though originally intended as reference points only, are becoming decisive documents in many cases. In other words, the party that wins the assessment conclusion is much more likely to win the case.

An Obstacle to Be Resolved

For better or worse, assessment has become very important in the process of settling a case. However, the problem is that not all objects can be assessed, and there are not sufficient experts to provide reliable assessment conclusions for every case. In addition, the procedures of assessment are very complicated and can be time-consuming. Often the courts are powerless to resolve cases because they depend on the assessment agency.

In an ongoing copyright dispute with regard to a musical work, for example, though the case was first accepted by the Ho Chi Minh City People’s Court in July 2018, it still had not been heard by the court four years later. One of the reasons for the delay is that the court had to wait for an assessment conclusion, which was not issued until June 2022.

In another case heard by the Binh Duong People’s Court in August 2022 with regard to a dispute over a computer program, the most nettlesome issue was the valuation of the infringed software. In this case, although the original amount claimed was nearly USD 1.5 million, the final amount of compensation accepted by the court was only around USD 200,000, because the court and the related parties could not find a common language—or a capable expert to provide an assessment conclusion—with regard to the valuation of the infringed object.

In practice, when it comes to cases related to assessing the amount of damages—something holders of infringed copyrights are always keen to have assessed by experts, to give the courts a basis for making judgments and rulings—experts in general are often very confused in reaching their conclusions. This is due to many different reasons; for example, it may be partly because the damages caused by an IP object tend to be relatively vague, or because the expert does not have much experience or training in assessing damages. Sometimes, even when there is clear enough evidence to enable the expert to reach an assessment conclusion (for example, there is a price quote on the licensing value of a work publicly displayed on the internet or in an offer for sale by the copyright holder), the expert still feels uncomfortable shouldering this responsibility in making their assessment.

It is clear that there are too many issues regarding assessment in copyright disputes that need to be resolved. Suggestions for improvement have come from many directions: the courts need to be more independent in making their judgments; more assessment centers should be established rather than just one under the Copyright Office of Vietnam; or independent experts should be accepted in legal proceedings. These are all options Vietnam should explore in the near future.

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