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 6, 2021

The Trouble with Moral Rights in Vietnam, and a Possible Solution

The Intellectual Property Law of 2005 (IP Law) was Vietnam’s first truly comprehensive legal instrument focusing on intellectual property. More than 15 years since its issuance, the IP Law has been strengthened and refined through its two amendments (in 2009 and 2019) and subordinate legal documents. Still, some provisions of the law have issues that remain controversial or unclear.

One issue that has recently drawn attention from legal scholars and practitioners is related to moral rights under the copyright regime. Under the current IP Law, the moral rights of authors/creators include the following:

  1. The right to give titles to their works.
  2. The right to attach their real names or pseudonyms to their works and to have their real names or pseudonyms acknowledged when their works are published or used.
  3. The right to publish their works or authorize others to publish their works.
  4. The right to protect the integrity of their works, and to prevent others from modifying, mutilating, or distorting their works in any manner prejudicial to their honor and reputation.

Moral rights are non-transferable, except for Point 3 as explicitly stated, and Point 4 in the case of modification of dramatic works, cinematographic works, architectural works, or computer programs. It is not clear whether such moral rights are waivable, and this appears to have never been tested before the court or other authorities. Many argue that as the name indicates (the Vietnamese term is quyen nhan than, or “personal” rights), moral rights are rights of the person, and are therefore inalienable, unwaivable, and perpetually associated with the author. Others, however, believe if there is a waivable agreement, duly agreed to by the commissioning party and the author in a voluntary manner, such agreement should be valid and respected by law, since the law does not explicitly prohibit the waiver of moral rights.

In 2019, a fierce debate arose after the verdict was announced in a copyright dispute relating to a series of Vietnamese comic books. The plaintiff in this case was Mr. Le Phong Linh, who worked as an illustrator for a publishing company named Phan Thi. At the request of Phan Thi, the plaintiff created four characters used in the popular comic series Than Dong Dat Viet (Prodigy of Vietnam). After issue 78 of the series, Mr. Linh quit his job and Phan Thi hired other artists to continue to use the images of the four characters for further development of the comic as well as for other printed matter.

Mr. Linh then filed a lawsuit against the company, requesting, among other things, that the company stop creating and making derivations of such characters, after his retirement, in any subsequent issues of the comic and in other printed matter. The court determined that Phan Thi had economic rights to the four characters, including the right to make derivative works. However, the court also ruled that because the company’s continued use of the works included alterations of the characters’ appearances (such as facial expressions and postures), without asking for the author’s permission, this use constituted copyright infringement—that is, it infringed the author’s right to prevent others from modifying, mutilating, or distorting his works in any manner prejudicial to his honor and reputation.

This verdict raised a serious concern, especially for a commissioning party, as to the possibility of violating the moral rights of a hired author. Obviously, a commissioning party has the economic rights in hand, which allow them to create a derivative work. However, based on the verdict in this trial, it would seem they still need to ask for the author’s permission before making and releasing any derivations. This could be quite burdensome, especially if the author does not show a willingness to cooperate. However, if such moral rights were clearly stipulated by law to be transferable, this would no longer be a concern.

The good news for commissioners of works for hire is that under the latest draft of the amended IP Law (draft version 3.0), for the first time in Vietnam, some of the moral rights (particularly the right to give a title to the work and the right to modify the work, regardless of the type of work) are stipulated as being “negotiable,” which would consequently make them transferable, provided that such transfer was agreed to by both parties in writing. This new provision will help minimize the legal risks of violating moral rights and facilitate a safer legal environment for operation in creative businesses. If it is included when the amended law is passed, contracting parties could reduce risk in the future by having a specific provision in their contracts concerning the permitted scope of modification of a copyrighted work.

For now, while the IP Law still prohibits the transfer of moral rights (though it remains silent or untested on the validity of an agreement to waive such rights), it is advantageous for a commissioning party to include a provision on waivability of moral rights or other similar provisions (e.g., the author does not have or claim any rights of any kind whatsoever or will not take any legal actions) in the labor contract or service agreement for work creation, to indicate the parties’ willingness right at the start of the engagement period and mitigate the potential legal risks.

RELATED INSIGHTS​ 

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 as a PDF through the button below. The full guide can be accessed for free 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
July 24, 2026
As food innovation continues to accelerate, manufacturers are increasingly introducing ingredients derived from new sources, produced using novel technologies, or lacking a significant history of human consumption. While these innovations create new opportunities for the food industry, they also raise important questions regarding consumer safety. For this reason, many jurisdictions, including Thailand, the European Union, Australia and New Zealand, Canada, and Singapore, require a premarket safety assessment for novel food ingredients before they can be placed on the market. The objective of this assessment is to ensure that each ingredient is safe for its intended use and level of consumption, does not present toxicological, allergenic, microbiological, or nutritional concerns, and will not mislead consumers. Scientific authorities typically evaluate the ingredient’s identity, manufacturing process, composition, specifications, anticipated dietary exposure, toxicological information, nutritional impact, and history of use before determining whether it can be marketed. Against this background, the Thai Food and Drug Administration (FDA) recently took an important step toward improving regulatory transparency by publishing, for the first time, a consolidated public list of substances that have successfully completed the Thai FDA’s safety assessment process, including substances determined to be novel foods and those determined not to fall within the novel food category. The list identifies the approved substances, the corresponding manufacturers or importers, approval dates, and the approved conditions of use. Although the publication does not change the existing legal framework governing novel food approvals, it provides businesses with greater visibility into the Thai FDA’s regulatory precedents and the types of substances that have previously been accepted through the safety assessment process. The full announcement is available on the Thai FDA’s website. As the list is now publicly available, it also provides useful insight into the types of substances that have successfully completed the Thai FDA’s safety assessment process.