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 21, 2026
Thailand’s Ministry of Digital Economy and Society (MDES) published a notification establishing an expedited court-ordered takedown mechanism for online content in cases of “urgent necessity.” The notification, which was issued on July 17, 2026, under the Computer Crime Act B.E. 2550 (2007), as amended, took effect the following day. It significantly expands the categories of content subject to rapid government-initiated removal. Content Categories Subject to Takedown The notification defines “urgent necessity” (section 20, paragraph 5, of the Computer Crime Act) as circumstances where any delay in suppressing computer data may impact national security, religion, the monarchy, good morals, social culture, or public order. In this regard, it establishes four broad categories of content: Computer Crime Act offenses. National security offenses. IP and other criminal offenses, where it is contrary to public order or good morals and a competent officer has requested its suppression. Content contrary to public order or good morals, a broad residual category encompassing 14 subcategories approved by the Computer Data Screening Committee. The fourth category is the most expansive. Its 14 subcategories include: Content defaming, mocking, satirizing, or devaluing the monarchy. Online gambling advertising or facilitation. Offering illegal firearms for sale. Offering baraku (hookah) products or e-cigarettes for sale. Offering cannabis inflorescences or processed cannabis products for sale. Advertising or soliciting prostitution. Content inciting violence, hatred, or social division. Unauthorized overseas employment advertising. Offering boiled kratom juice for sale. Online sale or advertising of alcoholic beverages. Content satirizing or degrading Buddhism. Money lending at interest rates exceeding legally prescribed limits. Advertising or disseminating information about surrogacy services. Forgery of documents, cards, or official documents. Enforcement Procedure In cases of urgent necessity, a competent official assigned by the MDES permanent secretary must file a petition with supporting evidence to the court with jurisdiction, requesting an order to
Read More
July 15, 2026
Ambush marketing refers to a strategy in which a business associates itself with an event, campaign, or brand without paying for official sponsorship rights. The tactic is most visible in sports, concerts, and festivals, where official sponsors have invested substantially for exclusivity. Ambush marketers may use suggestive wording, event-themed imagery, athlete endorsements, venue-adjacent promotions, or social media campaigns implying a commercial connection with the event. Common Forms of Ambush Marketing Ambush marketing typically takes one of the following forms: Direct ambushing: using event names, logos, or mascots suggesting authorization Coattail ambushing: sponsoring an athlete or broadcaster connected with the event Subtle ambushing: themed advertising, venue-adjacent campaigns, or similar visual cues The legal analysis in each case turns on whether the marketing crosses from permissible event-based advertising into infringement, passing off, deception, or wrongful exploitation of goodwill, and the risk assessment is necessarily fact-specific. Thailand has no dedicated ambush marketing statute, so legality depends on execution. A campaign that merely comments on a public event may be permissible, but one that uses protected marks, creates consumer confusion, misrepresents sponsorship status, or makes unsubstantiated claims may trigger liability under various Thai laws, as laid out below. Ambush Marketing and Thailand’s Trademark Act The Trademark Act B.E. 2534 (1991) is the primary tool for addressing campaigns that use registered trademarks, event names, logos, mascots, or confusingly similar signs. The law gives registered trademark owners the exclusive right to use their mark for registered goods, and infringement risk arises when a nonsponsor uses an event mark or a confusingly similar sign in advertising. Even referential or playful use may create liability if it causes public confusion as to sponsorship or commercial connection. The law also preserves passing-off claims for unregistered marks. This matters because event names, taglines, or mascots may not always be
Read More
July 13, 2026
When Decree No. 186/2026/ND-CP (Decree 186) takes effect on July 15, 2026, it will introduce the most significant reform of Vietnam’s administrative IP enforcement framework since Decree 99/2013/ND-CP was issued in 2013. These changes are expected to make administrative enforcement faster, more accessible, and better suited to the realities of modern IP disputes. Below are the principal reforms and their practical implications for rights holders and enforcement practitioners. The End of Notarization and Consular Legalization Among the most welcome procedural changes is the abolition of the notarization and consular legalization requirement for powers of attorney (POA) submitted in administrative enforcement proceedings. Under the previous regime, foreign rights holders were generally required to execute a POA, then have it notarized and consular legalized (if seeking customs recordal). In practice, this process frequently delayed enforcement by four to eight weeks, often long enough for infringing goods to disappear before authorities could intervene. Decree 186 removes this bottleneck, now requiring only an original or certified copy of the POA. If the document is in a foreign language, a Vietnamese translation is sufficient, provided it is certified by a competent authority or confirmed by the authorized Vietnamese IP representative. Consular legalization and notarization are no longer required. For rights holders, the practical impact is substantial. Administrative enforcement files that previously took weeks to prepare can now be completed in a matter of days, allowing much faster responses in time-sensitive matters such as warehouse raids, border interventions, and trade-fair enforcement. The decree also introduces a useful administrative simplification. Where an original POA has already been submitted to the same enforcement authority and remains valid, applicants may rely on a copy of that earlier submission by identifying the previous case file. This eliminates unnecessary duplication for rights holders pursuing multiple enforcement actions before the same
Read More
July 9, 2026
Recycling, upcycling, and refill-packaging models are now widely promoted as ways to reduce waste, lower carbon emissions, and respond to consumer demand for sustainable products. However, complications arise when these environmentally driven trends intersect with intellectual property law—particularly where reused or altered packaging continues to display third parties’ registered trademarks. Adding to this complexity, Thailand’s draft Sustainable Packaging Management Act aims to introduce new environmental compliance obligations that businesses must navigate alongside existing trademark concerns. Recycling and upcycling packaging may infringe trademark rights, especially in cases not protected by the first-sale doctrine—the principle that a trademark owner’s rights over a particular mark-bearing product end once the owner first sells it. Furthermore, even refill packaging carries legal risk due to specific statutory prohibitions under Thai law. Compounding these challenges, the draft Sustainable Packaging Management Act will impose extended producer responsibility (EPR) obligations on manufacturers and brand owners, requiring them to manage packaging throughout its lifecycle. These overlapping legal frameworks could deter manufacturers from pursuing ESG-aligned business models unless businesses understand how to navigate both trademark and environmental requirements. Under Thai law, this issue remains uncertain because the Trademark Act does not expressly codify the first sale doctrine, also known as the exhaustion of trademark rights. Generally, this doctrine provides that once a trademark owner has lawfully sold goods bearing its trademark, the owner’s right to control further resale of those particular goods is exhausted. The rationale is that the owner has already received commercial benefit from the first authorized sale; therefore, the purchaser should be free to resell or otherwise dispose of the goods. Although the doctrine is not expressly codified in the Trademark Act, Thai courts have recognized it in relation to genuine goods and parallel imports, as seen in a Supreme Court Judgment No. 2817/2543 in which the
Read More