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​ 

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
Read More
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
Read More
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
Read More
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,
Read More