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

September 4, 2023

Vietnam: Film Music Copyright Case Raises Questions

Subscribe to Updates
Managing Intellectual Property

With Vietnam’s entertainment industry booming, the demand for music to be used in films and video games has sharply increased. Sometimes a song featured in a movie’s soundtrack can become as popular as the movie itself.

In order to use a song in a film, the producer of the film will typically need to enter into an agreement with the owner of a copyrighted work to have permission to use that work – with an agreed amount of royalty. Otherwise, their use could be considered a copyright infringement. However, what happens if the producer enters into an agreement with a song’s purported copyright owner, only to later find that such person does not really own the song entirely? A recent high-profile case in Vietnam brought this issue to light.

The Dispute and Court Rulings

The film “Face Off 4 – The Walking Guests,” financed and produced by Ly Hai Promotion Co., Ltd (“Ly Hai”) premiered in April 2019, and soon became a big success. In this film, Ly Hai used a song called “Ganh Me” on the basis of a March 2019 contract to use the song signed with the musician Quach Beem, who was recognized as the song owner in a copyright certificate issued on 24 April 2019 by the Copyright Office of Vietnam (COV).

The dispute arose in November 2019 when an individual named Truong Minh Nhat discovered that the lyrics of “Ganh Me” were almost identical to a poem he had written and posted on his Facebook page in June 2014, well before the COV had issued the copyright certificate to Quach Beem. Mr. Nhat initiated a lawsuit against two defendants, Quach Beem and Ly Hai, for copyright infringement.

In his petition, Mr. Nhat requested the court to, among other things, recognize him as the author and owner of the lyrics of “Ganh Me” and order Quach Beem to correct false information in the copyright certificate and compensate for damages. Mr. Nhat also requested the court to order Ly Hai to stop using “Ganh Me” on all media and platforms until the effective date of the court verdict; to publish an apology in mass media for using his poem without permission and providing incorrect information about its author; to name him as the author and owner of the song lyrics in the film and all related articles and posts; and to compensate for damages.

In April 2022, the People’s Court of Ho Chi Minh City issued its first-instance verdict, recognizing that the plaintiff is the author and owner of the poem “Ganh Me” and that the act of registering a copyright for the song “Ganh Me,” containing his poem as lyrics, was an act of appropriating copyright to the plaintiff’s poem. The court then accepted the plaintiff’s claims against Quach Beem, including a part of the claim for damages.

Regarding Ly Hai, the court ruled that the company’s use of the song in its film on the basis of a contract with the musician was in good faith, so it rejected almost all of the plaintiff’s claims, except the request that the plaintiff be credited as the writer of the song lyrics in the film and other related articles and posts.

The first-instance verdict was appealed by Quach Beem, but was affirmed in June 2023 by the HCMC High Court.

Different Opinions on the Rulings

Article 133.2 of Vietnam’s Civil Code 2015 provides a mechanism for protecting a bona fide third party in civil transactions: “in cases where a civil transaction is void but the transacted property is registered at authorities and then transferred through another transaction to a bona fide third party, and this party relies on that registration to proceed with the transaction, such transaction shall be valid.” In such case, while the owner of a property can request the party at fault to refund appropriate expenses and compensate for damages, it has no right to reclaim the property from the bona fide third party. However, there is neither further guidance on Article 133.2 nor a specific definition of “bona fide third party” under Vietnamese law.

In the first-instance verdict, the HCMC Court ruled that Ly Hai’s use of the song was in good faith, but without specifying that it was a “bona fide third party” or providing clear legal grounds for its rulings. Thus, the verdict raised different opinions from lawyers and practitioners.

Many view that Ly Hai could not be viewed as a bona fide third party to enjoy protection under Article 133.2 because there was only a single transaction—the one between Quach Beem and Ly Hai. Without “another transaction,” there could be no third party and, as a result, the plaintiff is entitled to request the court to declare the contract between Quach Beem and Ly Hai void due to Quach Beem’s misrepresentation. In addition, under Vietnam’s IP Law, any use of copyrighted works without the owner’s permission, outside of specified permissible exceptions, would be considered infringement, so Ly Hai should bear liability for infringement charges as requested by the plaintiff.

In contrast, others argue that it is unnecessary to have more than one transaction to determine a bona fide third party. If the transacted property is registered with an authority, and a party relies on such registration to proceed with a civil transaction, this transaction is valid. As a result, such party would be viewed as a bona fide third party and can rely on Article 133.2 to protect its right and benefits. The first two parties would be the other party in the transaction and the true owner of the transacted property. It appears that the HCMC courts ruled on the dispute in line with this latter view.

Recommendations

The controversies above stem from having no clear definition of “bona fide third party” or guidelines on the conditions for protection of a bona fide third party in Vietnamese law. Thus, such matters need to be quickly guided or addressed by a Supreme Court resolution or precedent to ensure the consistent application by the lower courts in practice, so businesses feel safer in their operations in Vietnam.

Until those documents are issued, businesses are recommended to consult lawyers in Vietnam seeking advice for well-prepared contracts to minimize the relevant risk.

This article first appeared in Managing Intellectual Property.

Related Professionals

Practices

Intellectual Property

Location

RELATED INSIGHTS​ 

September 4, 2025
On June 6, 2025, the Superior People’s Court in Hanoi overturned a non-use cancellation decision by the Intellectual Property Office of Vietnam, a rare and impactful occurrence. In a ruling that may help clarify the enforcement of Vietnam’s IP Law, the court held that valid trademark use can be established through commercial arrangements where the brand owner maintains actual control over the use of the mark, and is not confined to relationships governed by a so-called “formal license agreement. Background: Cross-Border Use, Local Challenge A Singapore company owns a well-known brand of consumer products that has gained recognition across Southeast Asia. In recent years, the brand has been targeted by several unauthorized trademark filings in Vietnam. In one such instance, a local Vietnamese trading company—previously linked to the production and export of counterfeit goods to neighboring countries—filed a non-use cancellation against the Singapore company’s mark and sought to register it under its own name. If the cancellation had been upheld, it would have enabled a complete hijacking of the brand. The IP holder operates in Vietnam through a structured cross-border supply chain. Under an agreement between two related foreign entities, one of which managed regional operations, production orders were placed through a designated Vietnamese company. While the Vietnamese manufacturer was not a party to the agreement, its role in using the mark was recognized and governed by internal and commercial documentation. The Vietnamese manufacturer lawfully obtained the necessary permits, regulatory approvals, and customs clearances for producing the goods in Vietnam. These activities were supported by banking records and internal communications, evidencing active, continuous use of the mark in Vietnam. However, the IP Office concluded that this use did not meet the statutory criteria because the Vietnamese manufacturer did not have a direct license agreement with the brand owner, as
Read More
August 25, 2025
Indonesia’s current regulations on franchises, as stipulated under Government Regulation No. 35/2024 on Franchising and its implementing regulation, Ministry of Trade (MOT) Regulation No. 71/2019 regarding Implementation of Franchising, highlight fundamental changes in franchise registration. These changes have introduced additional complexities and challenges in the franchise registration procedure, making it more difficult for franchise owners to navigate the process. New procedure Franchise applications are still submitted through the Online Single Submission (OSS) portal of the Capital Investment Coordinating Board (BKPM). However, the new procedure requires each applicant, including foreign franchisors, to have an OSS account and a business registration number (NIB) issued by BKPM. An application for franchise registration must be submitted under the applicant’s own account—submissions can no longer be made through the account of a consultant. Once a franchise application is submitted, the authority will distribute the submission to the MOT—the authorized ministry for franchise registration. Any notification or decision upon the registration made by the MOT will be available in the OSS system. Applicants should regularly monitor the status of the franchise application because no notifications will be sent to applicants to alert them of any deficiency. Here is the summary of the new procedure for franchisors: Notable Requirements The disclosure document, or prospectus, is the key focus for the MOT in examining a franchise registration for a franchisor. This document is subject to thorough scrutiny by the MOT to ensure that all mandatory information meets the requirements set in the franchise regulations. The current regulations specifically require that the mandatory clause “business system” in the prospectus cover operational standards and procedures, which should include human resource management, administration, operational management, standard operating methods, business location selection, business premises design, employee requirements, and marketing strategies. Other clauses that are equally important to pay attention to are:
Read More
August 21, 2025
Although the “passing off” principle has sometimes faced criticism for potentially broadening trademark protection—particularly in cases involving unregistered or unconventional marks like shapes, scents, or sounds—it serves an essential purpose. It safeguards the rights of business owners and shields consumers from deception, ensuring fair competition and reflecting the realities of modern commerce. What is passing off, and why is registrability not required? The passing-off principle is a legal concept rooted in English law, aimed at preventing a person from falsely representing or using a mark similar to another’s in a way that causes consumers to mistakenly believe the goods or services come from the same source. Under Thai law, the passing-off principle is provided under Section 46 of the Thai Trademark Act, which states: No person shall be entitled to bring legal proceedings to prevent or to recover damages for the infringement of an unregistered trademark. The provisions of this Section shall not affect the right of the owner of an unregistered trademark to bring legal proceedings against any person for passing off goods as those of the owner of the trademark. The passing-off principle can be interpreted as a practical legal concept. It does not require proof that the mark is registrable or meets the registrability criteria under trademark law. It is sufficient to show that the mark has established goodwill and that the other party’s use of a similar mark is likely to confuse consumers, making it a straightforward and effective tool for protecting brand assets. Requiring a claimant to prove that an unregistered mark could have been registered would undermine the very function of passing off. The doctrine was conceived precisely to fill the gaps left by the registration system. Imposing registrability criteria would nullify its function and leave many commercially valuable identifiers unprotected. If the
Read More
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
Read More